Wikipedia:Relevance/Review A

This review applies to version 3.0, from 2007-07-14T23:04:54, which has since been moved to User:WikiLen/Relevance, and significantly changed. / edg ☺ ★ 02:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is something I did quickly and don't have time for re-considering or analysing, so take it with a grain of salt. If you can put off reading it, maybe I can smooth it out in a couple days. For what it's worth, I've been avoiding this article, so I'm reading it with fairly fresh eyes.

I apologize for finding mostly negatives. There has obviously been a lot of work and thought put into this guideline.

I think a few more insights will be needed before this becomes a viable guideline.

What I'm reading now is a lot of meditation on the subject of relevance, with (where this led to no answers) other Wikipedia tools that don't address relevance filling in the gaps. Currently it's a Frankenstein, groping for meaning as it stomps around readability.

In current form, I don't see how this will help editors make any decisions, or give them any tools with which to approach editing (or resolve disputes). I really wish I saw more postives in this right now. / edg ☺ ★ 21:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section

This lead section only tells me that this article is going to say something. Per WP:LEAD it should tell me something, ideally the whole story in summary form.

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.

If this is needed at all, it should be low on the page. These principles should not conflict with WP:RELEVANCE or one another, so it should not be necessary to prioritize them. In that case, omit entirely.

Nutshell

A nutshell should be a Mao-ist slogan, giving me the very meaning of the document with cutting immediacy. Is there a single principle to this? That would be a good nutshell. Otherwise, omit the nutshell entirely — what use is a nutshell if I have to read the article to find out what it means?

Unclear, therefore not actionable:

What is a "compelling argument"? This guideline should give us terms for such argument.
What exactly "serves the needs of the readers"? Can editors presume (because they will) that readers are like them, or perhaps mostly are other editors? Then they can write to address their own perceived needs.

Relevancy and edit disputes

Any editing "rule" can be ignored if it keeps relevant material from getting into an article.

(Now I see the reason for including the above list of prioritized principles.)

This is a bad suggestion because it says that relevance justifies ignoring other rules — since irrelevant content shouldn't be entered, this effectively nullifies all rules except WP:RELEVANCE and the above three. Frankly, rules like Avoid trivia sections (among others) are good rules, and dispensations from them are not a good thing.

If there are rules that conflict with good content, those rules should be changed (with the group consideration and consensus that process would require), not routinely ignored by the editor.

Practical realities of "relevancy" in Wikipedia

There is no external "reliable source" to tell editors what is relevant.

Then what use is this guideline? Omit this waffle!

An editor's innate sensitivity to relevance is what is drives inclusion or deletion of material, not this guideline.

By this logic, relevance is determined by the editor, and cannot be disputed by another editor. Does an editor with innate sensitivity to relevance need this guideline? More waffle! Omit!

Relevancy driven by agendas or emotions is to be avoided

However, one can dispute by accusing the another editor of driven by agendas or emotions. This ignores WP:AGF, and anyway is discussing motivations rather than content (the merits of which, from the above, cannot be disputed). This is going entirely in the wrong direction. Burn this!

The sensitive ear editors put to the task of relevancy humbles attempts to codify it ...

I don't get this. To me this sounds like the writer is admitting "I have no idea how to explain". Can this knowledge be imparted in any way? If so, omit this sentence. Omit it anyway.

Guiding principles

The three initial bullet points are as vague here as in the Lead section. Should remove these (so the reader doesn't waste time pondering them out of context) and go straight to the subsection. The This section elaborates... opener also wastes the reader's time.

Again, "compelling argument" and "serves the readers" are vague or meaningless. Content must be about the subject of the article sheds little light beyond the obvious.

Content must be about the subject of the article

Again, this section sheds no light on anything not already obvious. Section wanders, like it's groping for ideas.

Yes on disambig pages, but why is this mentioned at all?

Wikipedia is not some things. Yes, but this is better said elsewhere, and what use is this information here?

Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook or textbook, nor a travel guide.

Okay that's three ideas that may model "not relevant", but that only helps with three very particular ideas. Can a point be extracted from WP:NOT that sheds light on what overall is relevant or not?

Sometimes an article's content will evolve beyond its original subject.

This seems like you want to mention Wikipedia:Summary Style. This is worth a mention, but Summary Style is the attic, and the house isn't built yet. Omit here, add lower.

Compelling argument can be made for its relevancy

its relevance must be demonstrated if challenged by another editor, but no non-trivial grounds for such a challenge has been established. So far the only guidelines are:

Must be about the topic
entirely subjective stuff

And what follows only says the editors will have to come to an agreement based on no principles, merely their willingness to cooperate.

BRD – a guideline on article content (is this?) shouldn't need to go into the BRD process; it should contain guidelines on article content. All this just presumes no standard can be formed, no advice can be given. It's hopeless. How depressing. This article needs Prozac.

Reach into minor details must be appropriate (serve the readers)

Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia

Something positive: this is the first time in months I've read this from someone who didn't immediately try to make the case ... therefore, don't try to make it like an encyclopedia.

However, information that is true and verifiable does not necessarily meet the threshold for relevance within a given article.

What threshold? Lines of demarcation still have not been drawn.

readability – a new, vague, and undefined standard. I would bet most of the content guidelines editors are instructed above to ignore are to promote readability.

First paragraph wastes the reader's time. There's an admonition it is often tempting... , but it doesn't lead to actual advice. What is it the writer was intending to say here?

Articles on very general subjects should be written in summary style and only consider information relevant if it has a very strong connection to the subject.

A better rule here might be something like information added to articles on very general subjects should address the entire subject, rather than a subset of that topic for which a more specific article exists (or should exist) (could be clearer, but in the direction). This use of the term "summary style" (implying WP:SUMMARY) will confuse.

The circumference of the Moon is not notable but, although a minor detail, it is relevant for the article on the Moon.

This has nothing to do with the Wikipedia standard for notability. However, it is the sort of example often made (mistakenly) in discussions defining "trivia" — no one (other than in straw man arguments) thinks the moon's circumference is "trivia" and therefore should be excluded from Moon. Someone so confused they believe it may ... still hasn't learned anything by reading this far.

Biographical articles — a special case

The person – I don't see a point to this guideline. Presuming we have sources, why should the amount of coverage on Wikipedia reflect the WP:BIAS of other coverage?

Impact on society – makes sense, but I'm not sure this speaks in a clear way about relevance. What's really meant here?

Italicized summary of WP:BIO cautions seems off-topic and doesn't speak to relevance.

Pitfalls to avoid

Do not put off-topic content into an article solely because its compelling nature argues it is relevant.

What? Wasn't "a compelling argument can be made" a case for inclusion? Does "compelling nature" mean I like something? That makes it bad to include?

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.

Okay good. WP:V and WP:CITE would speak to this as well.

Do not put content into an article just because readers need to know about it.

There's an admonition here, maybe a good one about feeling over-eager. But it is not an actionable rule. Who edits entirely things they don't care about? (Besides myself.) How does one know they're going too far?

A more detailed treatment table

Compelling – Positive! Said better here than above. Delete above and send the reader straight here.

Endangered – not sure about the comments here. Can the "endangered" (if not stored on Wikipedia, it will be lost to the world) be WP:CITEed and reliably sourced? If so, what's wrong with it? If not, why are we even considering it?

Important – okay, put it in the correct article. This is a positive.

Relevancy should be changed to Relevant, to match the equivalents in column 1.

I like this table. Needs clarifying, but easy to read, pleasing to the eye. Title this table Pitfalls to avoid and remove the above section. Positive, with much potential.

Relevancy and editing skill

Promises a lot.

Academic analysis

No one will read a section with this title.

Changing how the public perceives the subject. might be useful. The rest of impact is vague.

Fundamental information – okay, but no one will ever dispute that "fundamental information" is not relevant.

Distinguishing traits – good point, positive.

When is indirect relevance accepted by good editors?

Entire sections should not be italicised.

How about entitling the above section Direct relevance (and make that section more concise, since a section on obvious stuff is less needed), then entitle this section Indirect relevance? Concise, understandable, useable terms. Action-ready terms! People will use such terms!

Often accepted for durative works that have influenced the original

A more common word than durative should be used in a section title, for people who don't know what that word means, like myself.

Positive A fact that connects two subjects may be important to one of the subjects, but not the other. Start with that, delete the preamble. Took me a long time to read this paragraph.

Books, movies, and other works ... specifically about a subject are often relevant. When are they not? We are starved for clarity!

Often accepted for almanac type lists

This section seems like a long-winded way to recommend Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections. Cut down to very short. The word "Almanac" may be unhelpful.

Often accepted for establishing context

Long winded. This should say "provide context", with a link to Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Provide context for the reader.

Example 1

Positive. Trim the superflous detail, streamline the example if you need to. Quiz format may not be right for Wikipedia, so lose that. This should open with The article is about a film.

The words fung shui may lose people. How about raisins?

Hmm. Actually this example does speak to relevance, but it's quite narrow. Is this aiming for a hard, "trick" question? Something simple and easy to grasp is better.

Example 2

But, wasn't this film about motivation? Why would I assume fung shui might be relevant? Better something like Althought fung shui is mentioned in the film, a subtopic on fung shui not addressing issues from the film is in the wrong article.

Splitting off to new articles

Now would be a good time to go into WP:SUMMARY. It's not mentioned here, and earlier mentions were premature.

Keeping article length reasonable

Summary spinoffs for length are not relevant to the subject of relevance. Delete section! Short is better!

Splitting lists into a new article

The subject of "In popular culture" lists is mishandled here, as a side issue in discussing summary spinoffs. An article on Relevance should have a lot to say to WP:IPC.

Avoiding mini-articles in subsections

Positive. This is where a relevance guideline may demand a summary spinoff. Delete earlier mentions.

Overall

I'm sorry this came out so negative. I don't think this article has evolved enough to provide a helpful guideline.

General negative tendencies: vague, wandering, long-winded, not sure what it wants to say (and says its not sure, very discouraging to the reader). Wonders and worries too much; not enough actionable suggestions.

There are some vaguely expressed feelings here (beyond not knowing if anything can be done) that make me think 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. Suggestion: the writer should ask their personal guru from where their flashes of insight come. Brilliant ideas are needed, and certainly they want to be used.

Concrete examples might help, either used in the article, or for experimenting with what the rules might be.

That's the best I can come up with now. If I think of something else, I'll wave my arms in Wikipedia talk:Relevance. / edg ☺ ★ 00:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]