Wikipedia talk:Relevance/Archive 1

Does this meet a need?

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

• What is trivia? – this has a really quick standard for relevance
• Types of trivia items – this specifically details a few common circumstances that are handled differently.

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

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

The trivia policies, guidelines and many other unrelated policies all rely on a specific definition of 'relevance'. Either those policies need to have added clarification or a central policy clarifying the term is needed. In the long run having a seperate policy for such a clarification I think will prove most useful, since the trivia policies/guidelines aren't the only ones that rely heavily on this term. --Android Mouse 06:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a degree of overlap between this proposal and what's at WP:HTRIVIA. HTRIVIA is more than twice as long, though, and in my view, not as concise. Its summary is quite concise, however. I probably should move my "three questions" at the top, though, and possibly provide a longer summary of them in that section. I would like a definition of the word "subject" early on, since the guideline relates content to subject, but I'll figure out a better place for it.

My problem with HTRIVIA is that its definitions of relevance are fairly circular, along the lines of "trivia is irrelevant is unimportant". The examples given there, and the "types of trivia" are comparable to what I used. But I'm not going for quickness, I'm going for precision. I wanted something that had at least a chance of being objectively applied, which is why I took the "three questions" approach. If you can't manage to fit trivia to one of the three questions, it's not relevant to the subject. (Then again, there may be relevant facts which the current "three questions" fail to catch, although I've evaluated hundreds of "test facts" and been reasonably satisfied.)

The definitions offered at HTRIVIA may read more plainly, but they also rely more on implicit interpretations, which dilutes their usefulness. Some stuff could probably be brought over from HTRIVIA, and there's no doubt what I've written could be further improved. But I really want to avoid talking about "trivia" on this page: ultimately it's just a label, very subjectively applied. I want this page to stick to "standards of relevance", and let WP:TRIVIA and WP:HTRIVIA offer more detailed how-tos.

I too was surprised by how strongly this proposal seems to come out in favor of deletion. However, my earlier postings on WP:TRIVIA were mostly in opposition to excessive deletion (as I interpet it): I don't want the baby to go out with the bathwater. Since the language at WP:TRIVIA was open-ended, I felt it erred in the direction of excessive deletion, further compounded by how much easier it is to delete stuff than to integrate it. But I am a defender of babies, not of bathwater. It's my feeling this proposal manages to segregate them correctly.--Father Goose 08:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Essay

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

(A) Good point. I made a small change which makes it actionable. This is not simply a "cheat" to slip under the bar; you should note how little action is specified by many Wikipedia guidelines and policies, such as WP:Notability itself. The rest of those guidelines are taken up with definitions and rationales, much like this one. However, if you continue to feel it fails to be actionable, I'll change it further to satisfy your concerns. It's quite critical that it be a guideline and not an essay, as without the (provisional) "stamp of community approval", it would be without use, much as Notability would be useless as an "essay".

(B) It's not about article inclusion, but it is about content inclusion. Nonetheless I accept your judgement in not pairing it with the Notability set.--Father Goose 08:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I put my glasses on and read this projectpage through again, and gained valuable insight. Interesting dichotomies and rationales are set up, as an essay. WP:write an article (not self-referential) -- (WP:BOLD). These ideas are topical – unfortunately there seem to be plenty and more of guidelines to try to interpret already. That's my present thoughts, I will read the material again, thanks for providing. – User:Newbyguesses - Talk 16:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

To clarify my comment, after further reading, work on this material is valuable. However, the more succinct archived version of the page seems adequate, and this material goes into detail which unfortunately bogs down: talking about toomuchtrivia is as involved and involving (not) as reading toomuchtrivia and bad typo's. (not a criticism of anyone) –Newbyguesses - Talk

Quoting here-

Indeed, instruction creep must have its day. I'm betting on a final length of about 20 pages. ;) --Father Goose 05:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

...with the talk page reaching over 100 :p --Android Mouse 05:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

End quotes---

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

Misses the point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two other things that need to be considered: article length, and volume of material written about a fact in the sources. Re article length: about some topics there isn't much you can say, so you say everything that's appropriate and then stop. But other topics are very broad, e.g. history of Africa. There's a tremendous amount that's relevant to the topic. Whole books can be written. So, you don't say everything that's relevant. You write a balanced article, with roughly equal-sized sections about roughly equally important aspects of the topic, and you include only the most relevant information in each section, pruning it so that it fits within a reasonable article length.

Re volume of material in the sources: if a fact is discussed a lot in the sources, then, well, it's notable. Individual facts don't have to be notable to be included, but if they are notable -- that's an indication that likely they should be included (if they fit within article length and other criteria). In that case, the sources are using their own criteria for deciding what to write about.

Besides, words like "fundamental" in the current policy don't really clarify anything much. One editor could say "this is fundamental" and another could say "no, it isn't" and you wouldn't get anywhere. I think people would be better off arguing about what to include without referring to this proposed guideline. --Coppertwig 12:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

examples (summary)

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

Internet

Jet

Tom Cruise/Bugatti Veyron

John Bull

left-handedness

Belguim

Margaret Thatcher/crystallographer

Tommy Lee Jones/Harvard

Curb Your Enthusiasm

Bohemian Rhapsody/Queen

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

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

In a nutshell & opening section

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

---

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

---

See also: Wikipedia:Notability

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

---

Thanks for saying you were inspired by my comment! I like "serves the needs of readers". I wonder if there's a better wording for "centred on the topic of the article," because to me, an article should cover several subtopics each of which is not "centred" on the topic but overlap or surround it like the petals of a flower. Saying "centred" could justify deleting every section of an article except the introduction. I'm not sure if I can think of a better wording. "is closely tied to" "is relevant to" "is of importance to" "is closely connected with" "provides information about" "is the sort of thing readers searching for this topic would want to see" maybe someone can think of something better. --Coppertwig 17:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not feel the draft by WikiLen promises to be an effective approach. So far it can be condensed to "don't add irrelevant stuff to articles" and doesn't offer any kind of definition of relevance. If relevancy were obvious, then nothing would need to be said about it. It's obvious to me, and it's obvious to you, but if we compared notes, we'd probably find ourselves in disagreement about the relevancy of a lot of things. This is why I feel the approach I've been taking -- while still needing work -- is much better.

Father Goose, the work you and others have done is significant and valuable. The issues have obviously been well considered and I found it informative. thanks for the work. —WikiLen 11:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

In fairness to the discussion, my draft does not condense to "don't add irrelevant stuff to articles". In claiming this you overlook or consider unimportant these points expressed in my draft: (1) Focus needs to be on serving the readers (2) Relevancy is rightly determined by the editors, not policy. (3) One's ability to discern relevance has affect components needing Policy attention. —WikiLen 11:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:Notability lists several objective criteria against which to measure an article. These criteria represent a common ground (more or less) amongst Wikipedians. A similar approach should be adopted regarding relevance -- we should attempt to identify and specify that common ground using objective criteria, to the degree that that is possible. I won't pretend that pure objectivity is possible, but having agreed-upon criteria explicitly spelled out will allow editors to discuss specific points, instead of leaving things mired in the million arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.

All right, I'm gonna keep whacking at this thing.--Father Goose 04:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Father Goose's comment, "If relevancy were obvious": 'The vast majority of relevancy seems to be obvious. Perhaps only 10% of content has a relevancy concern. Clearly value is to be had in making that 10% less contentious, however, the trick is how to do it without messing up the 90% that is working fine. It is for the sake of that 90%, that I believe relevancy is best left undefined. —WikiLen 08:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, my antidotal evidence suggests, the real challenge is on how to deal with editors whose passions have overridden their judgment. Arguments don't seem to deter these. Only the weight of other editors keeps them in line. A policy focused on defining relevancy will have little impact on these. The only thing with potential to help is a policy that gently, yet boldly, identifies the role passion has in blinding one to relevancy. —WikiLen 08:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

If arguments don't deter passion, why would a guideline saying "don't let passion override your judgement" change the situation? Separately, I don't agree that perception of relevance is always a matter of misplaced passion: there are plenty of cases where it's nothing more than a difference of opinion. I've seen stuff deleted from articles that to my eyes had at least moderate relevance. I wasn't passionately attached to the deleted material (I didn't write it) and I don't believe the person deleting it had any particular hatred of it -- their threshold for "relevance" was set in a different place from mine, is all. That isn't a question of passion. It's a question of differing standards. I want to try to identify a common ground. I think I've made a good start of that. Nobody's actually said that the criteria I came up with were "dead wrong" just yet -- although CopperTwig correctly pointed out an important omission.

Do you disagree with the criteria I suggested? Are they wrong? If so, how?--Father Goose 21:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've had a little time to cool off. I admit, I am bothered by what seems to be a plan to replace my proposal wholesale. I would like something more than to be told "the work you have done is significant and valuable" then watch it get swept aside for someone else's preferred approach. If this is not actually what is happening, then I apologize for my misunderstanding.

Now, I do not insist that my approach will prove to be the right one. But I would like it to be given the courtesy of an in situ evaluation on its merits (or lack thereof). I did put a lot of work and thought into it and plan to continue working hard on it. I am receptive to others' views on it, even negative ones. If it's really the wrong approach, it won't gain consensus and it'll die on the vine. I'll mourn it, but I won't oppose other approaches if my approach fails. But for now, if you have problems with my proposal, I ask that you express them. Give me a chance to address them. Please don't undercut my work -- critique it, demolish it, edit it (it may be my brainchild but it is not my possession), but please don't push it aside.--Father Goose 00:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

the draft (above)

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

Ongoing work

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

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

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

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

Merge?

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

• I support Radiant's proposal. --Kevin Murray 14:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea. AVTRIVIA is a style guideline about trivia sections, and at this time says one thing — Avoid organizing articles as lists of isolated facts regarding the topic — and explains how to handle such when it occurs. It's not a good place to begin defining either trivia or relevance. Perhaps the redirect from WP:TRIVIA (which probably led to the creation of this article) should be pointed to a future version of this article. / edgarde 17:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

At the very least, we'll have to see what ends up on this page. Its content and even purpose is in flux, but as it matures it'll become clearer if it has any redundancy with WP:AVTRIV.--Father Goose 21:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed the merge proposal tag. I don't necessarily oppose a merger in the future, but for now, a conversation completely specific to the "relevance" issue is worth having, without crowding the discussion with a guideline that has a different specific mission, albeit with some related issues.--Father Goose 22:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• You'll find that it's far easier to amend an existing guideline than to start a new one. At any rate the talk page is big enough to discuss several things at once. >Radiant< 08:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

All right, I'll leave the tag in place, but here's the ideal place to talk about relevance, and I'd like to see what kind of consensus (if any) emerges on the subject before trying to shunt it onto a different page.--Father Goose 08:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• If the premise is flawed, there is no need, and the support is weak, no amount of time will justify acceptance. Proposals sometime linger and then confuse people. --Kevin Murray 13:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like you're pronouncing it dead already. The work's only begun.--Father Goose 17:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Mind you, if you do feel the premise is flawed, I'd like to hear why.--Father Goose 21:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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

On policy verses guidance

I submit:

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with many of these points, although I don't anticipate we will end up getting a policy on relevance instead of (or in addition to) a guideline. It's my impression that policies need to demonstrate that they're necessary, not just sensible, in order to gain adoption. WP:Notability itself is a guideline, not a policy, for instance.

Good point. Perhaps I only dream, but I intend to make the case that both are necessary; an "official policy" that experienced editors can cite or quote in support reverting a bad edit and guidelines to educate editors — especially new editors — on the nuances of discerning relevance. —WikiLen 03:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

In particular, I agree with the two-pronged approach you mention. The second draft, in progress, covers much more general ground, and I hope the two prongs can share one guideline comfortably. You'll have a lot more to sink your teeth into shortly, and maybe we can start jointly editing it at that point.--Father Goose 21:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I look forward to it — your second draft and the possibility of joint work... —WikiLen 03:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

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

Quoting a bit of the top post to this page -

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

ENDQUOTe

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

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

It sounds like there's some confusion over what a policy is versus a guideline. According to WP:POL they're both basically the same, but policies are "more official". AVTRIV is itself a guideline, and the primary advice it offers is "turn lists into prose", which isn't a relevance issue at all. Relevance is an issue to AVTRIV, but not the issue. Relevance is an issue that extends beyond the issue of trivia and especially beyond the issue of trivia sections. It's also an issue lacking any formally-stated consensus position on Wikipedia, which is why I've been working on this proposal.

At any rate, the revised draft's about halfway done, so we'll see how compatible the two guidelines seem as the work progresses.--Father Goose 04:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou user:Father Goose, for clearing that up, and it seems to me you expressed it right about policy, and guideline and "more official". Sorry if I had that wrong there. As to the QUote directly above, that statement too seems well put, and that's why it was quoted, Newbyguesses - Talk 05:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)