Wikipedia talk:Relevance of content/Archive 1

Archive 1

• Notes on prior proposal & discussion

The prior proposal was substantially rejected at the former location and restarted here. The bulk of the critical discussion was moved to the archive pages. In a nutshell the objections were: (1) that there is no need for a guideline on such an obvious issue or (2) if this issue is to be addressed the topic should be handled in an existing guideline. --Kevin Murray 17:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

"Substantially rejected" is an unsupported claim, but the above objections were indeed voiced, especially toward earlier drafts of the proposal.--Father Goose 21:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

List items

As per the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Avoid trivia sections, should we include a description of what is relevant for list sections? I feel like the current description of relevance doesn't really allow for things like cultural references.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

01:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the changes Dcoetzee and I just made to WP:TRIVIA might take care of that, provided they don't get reverted, but even then we might be able to preserve some of it. In this proposal, I tried to accommodate references-made-by-the-subject with "while the original subject will often have importance to the referring work..." The "impact" requirement for references to the subject is more discriminating: on Howard Hughes' page, The Aviator should stay, but does it really need to mention all those song lyrics?--Father Goose 02:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be "...have importance to the work being referred to"? "References-made-by-the-subject" means that the subject IS the referring work. Or I could just be confused, as this is some very abstract language.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

03:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

If it's confusing I'll have to fix it. Let me see what I can do.--Father Goose 03:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion - choose a different example at the end of section 1.4 "Connection between subjects". Best would be one with no biographical implications - like an earthquake or an aeroplane or train or something. One that was tried before might work-

The Mona Lisa obviously influenced Duchamp's creative decision to construct the "ready-made" L H O O Q. But has there been any back-influence, from LHOOQ to impact upon the topic of the Mona Lisa, the original creative work? (An example from RELdraft 1) or, can a better example be found that does not preempt the following section header (2 Biographical details). Newbyguesses - Talk 00:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The ideal examples would be non-biographical, culturally-universal, and describe content that is likely to remain in (or be excluded from) the example article(s). What I'm really looking for is some kind of pop-culture event that unmistakably affected the subject, to demonstrate that "pop culture references" can be relevant, even though usually they aren't. I like the Ford examples because they nail the last two requirements. I'll keep my eyes open for an example that nails all of them.--Father Goose 07:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the reason pop-culture reference lists survive is because of the perceived importance of establishing as much notability for an article's subject as possible. Notability can be proved by establishing a subject's influence on popular culture, and references made to the subject in popular culture are proof of that influence. The more pop-culture references, the more influence can be claimed, the more notable the subject appears. This is something Wikipedia has fostered by placing importance on establishing notability, and it's not something people will give up easily. Editors have been conditioned to keep as much proof of notability in their articles as possible.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

22:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of pop culture sections is a bit different: I'd say they're common because people like to add pop-culture references that made them aware of the subject to the article on the subject. That's notability of a certain sort, but not how WP:Notability construes it. And the more prominent the subject, the more pop-culture references will accrue, to the point where they can drown an otherwise-good article under dozens of really-not-notable references. World Trade Center in popular culture is a textbook example of this: imagine all those references in the WTC article itself -- absolutely unworkable. I personally don't see a problem with separate "pop culture" articles, as long as they are verifiable and don't from drift their topic, but that's a different issue.--Father Goose 05:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Examples (re Ford)

I think that the Ford example is a poor one, due to the fact that many biographies include a [Person] in pop culture section, or something to that effect. It would be acceptable for both Ford portrayals to be included there; although it is correct that only the Chevy Chase one might have any proper use within the article discussing his life.

A lot of the film or actor articles, however, contain numerous random facts about how X, Y, and Z worked together on something, and Z also worked with A, B, and C on another show. (A lot of this is IMDb-cruft anyway). Those facts are largely useless and tangential (with a few exceptions), and might make a better example - among many... Any case, good luck! Girolamo Savonarola 22:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Subjectivity

I think that the spirit of this proposal is very good, but it's still very subjective. How can importance be determined? I think it should be explicit that connective trivia should not be considered relevant without an independent source indicating that relevance. --Eyrian 15:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Anything that's not verifiable should be removed. If you're talking about something that appeared on a TV show or the like, that is verifiable.

I avoided using subjective terms when it came to specific instructions, and I deliberately avoided giving specific instructions about "what is important to the creative work" because I doubt we could draw up any general rules about that without getting it wrong. For instance, Family Guy makes a million weird references to everything, and an explanation of those references is potentially appropriate in an episode-specific article. But the fact that Fox Mulder drove a Dodge Stratus in the X-Files movie is clearly not important, subjective or no.

I did get specific about "must have an effect on the referenced subject", since that's a very prevalent type of trivia that warrants some guidance beyond "nuke it".

We want to avoid disallowing potentially appropriate things while trying to blast away minor references that anybody in their right mind would remove without any guidance. However, if you think you can come up with more specific wording that won't produce collateral damage, by all means, try.--Father Goose 17:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

"But the fact that Fox Mulder drove a Dodge Stratus in the X-Files movie is clearly not important" Hah! If only. No, all the time, I find users pressing for the importance of such references, claiming that they prove that the subject is important. Playing Devil's advocate for a moment, surely, its appearance in a popular film indicates that the Dodge Stratus is a common car in America? Again, looking over the various awful, awful trivia/IPC articles I have, it becomes clear that some people cling dearly to the most trivial of mentions, and that requiring explicit, cited indication of importance is the best way to go. --Eyrian 17:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Actually, I meant it wasn't important to Mulder or the X-Files. And you'd have to describe the effect that that specific appearance in the X-Files had on the Dodge Stratus. Perhaps you'd like to tighten the language of the proposal to prevent broader interpretations than that.

I wouldn't go so far as to say citations must be provided: WP:Verifiability is policy, WP:Verified is not. But if people make assertions of "what effect this had" that aren't verifiable, you can toss them, and if they don't make any assertion at all, you can still toss them. You did bring to my attention that mention of WP:V got dropped from the proposal at one point, so I've restored it. The current wording of this proposal has more teeth than I think you realize, but perhaps you'd like to add a few more. Go ahead.--Father Goose 20:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I actually really like the way that's worded now. I fully support this. --Eyrian 20:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The road to official sanction

What's the best way to move this along the road to becoming policy/guideline? What else needs to be done? --Eyrian 20:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that was a fast conversion. Welcome aboard!  ;-) The most important thing is to demonstrate that there's a consensus for having it as a guideline. I won't attempt to make it a "policy" -- it just isn't one. But that won't make it any less enforceable -- consensus is ultimately what drives authority.

Of the people who have commented on it so far, I count 6 explicit supporters, about 10 neutral/unspecifieds, a handful who didn't like earlier versions but haven't commented on the most recent ones, one opposer (Kevin Murray) who has never commented on the policy itself, and one editor (WikiLen) whose attitude towards it has been convoluted. He's been on vacation but will be back soon, and I'm not sure what he'll have to say about the current state of things.

I wouldn't mind hearing from other editors who contributed to the discussion of trivia over at WT:NOT, especially DGG. I consider his philosophy to be very similar to mine, so if we can get the two of you in agreement over this thing, I'd say we've struck a perfect middle ground.

If I don't hear any reasoned objections to it within the next couple of weeks, I'd be prepared to call it a guideline and see if that gets the cats yowling.--Father Goose 08:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The initial quotes in italics are quotes from Father Goose: (WikiLen)

• "...and one editor (WikiLen) whose attitude towards it has been convoluted" — True, I have been persuaded to reverse my position by the arguments of Coppertwig, Kevin Murray, and Edgarde i.e.: a guideline on Relevance is not needed. I am virtually 100% in that camp. I still want to see a WP guideline on what Relevance is not, similar to What Wikipedia is not. My essay on this: What claims of relevance are false.
• "...prepared to call it a guideline and see if that gets the cats yowling" — Shouldn't one post at Village Pump first?
• "I'm not sure what he'll [myself] have to say about the current state of things" — my take:

1. Given the stated rationale for this proposal. Wouldn't a better title for this proposed guideline be "Relevance for Trivia" instead of "Relevance for content"?
2. And why is a policy that will effect all articles needed when the focus is only on Trivia and the like. Put bluntly, WP:TRIVIA is where the content in this proposal belongs, if anywhere.
3. Discerning relevance is what wiki's do by their nature. This proposal is attempting to create a linguistic engine for discerning relevance in the face of the social engine we already have for doing the same (Wikipedia).

• "I count 6 explicit supporters..." — We have not done a straw poll on this. In the past, seat-of-the-pants counts in our debates have been proven to be wrong. I prefer to leave the count unspecified unless we do an actual straw poll — doing one now would be fine with me. But your general point is well taken, i.e.: there are significant number interested in having a Relevance policy such as proposed by Father Goose.

End of rely to Father Goose —WikiLen 05:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• I did post notice on WP:VPP back when the proposal was new: [1]. I wouldn't mind posting there again at some point. For now, DGG's feedback alone will probably keep me busy for the next week or two. I still wouldn't mind getting further feedback from you as to which parts of the proposal you feel are dead wrong.
• This proposal does have a lot of bearing on "trivia", but not exclusively so. The most sensible title is, and always was, Relevance, but I changed its name so that discussion of it could continue without disruption.
• I'd claim we're trying to lay out some sensible, hopefully consensual standards and procedures here on the subject of relevance. "Linguistic engine" is a curious way to put it.--Father Goose 06:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding:

This proposal does have a lot of bearing on "trivia", but not exclusively so. The most sensible title is, and always was, Relevance...

The question remains, "Why is a policy that will effect all articles needed when the focus is only on Trivia and the like?" Your work is both inspired by issues at Trivia and "has a lot of bearing on Trivia" so why is this not in Trivia? I understand that you think it also has bearing outside Trivia, but I find the only support for this proposal is from editors at Trivia. Wouldn't it make sense to first get it established at the Trivia guideline, where you are likely to get support and then, with that base, face the struggle to generalize to all articles? —WikiLen 08:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:TRIVIA isn't a trivia guideline, despite its name: it's a trivia sections guideline. Its focus is exclusively on that specific style issue. If this proposal becomes a guideline, WP:TRIVIA will be subordinate to it in terms of "trivia guidance", covering an ancillary issue. It makes more sense to merge "avoid trivia sections" into Relevance than the other way around. But I don't see any use in completely upturning that fairly-well-established guideline.

Although trivia is a hotspot for relevance issues, this proposal is aimed at the entire issue of relevance, and doesn't even acknowledge that there is such a thing as "trivia" -- which is as it should be. (Like WP:TRIVIA, it mentions "trivia sections" only.) In taking a general approach, this proposal takes the best approach: relevance is a question of focus and proximity. Trivia that lacks focus and proximity is arguably irrelevant (to an article, not necessarily to all of them). Trivia for which relevance can be demonstrated should never have been called trivia in the first place.

Focus is an unmistakable issue all throughout Wikipedia. The very nature of Wikipedia promotes this lack of focus: editors add whatever information they think is appropriate to any article. It takes a true "editor", in the publishing sense, to organize and refocus all that material. Unfortunately, the easiest way to organize and refocus an article is just to delete its outliers. A guideline that advises how to maintain this focus and better organize those outliers is appropriate and desirable. Although this proposal might end up being "the" trivia guideline, its purpose is not that of "a" trivia guideline: its focus is on organization and specificity. It addresses trivia only to the extent that it is often disorganized and unspecific.--Father Goose 18:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

this is a very rough draft

I think this is a very rough draft, and the trivia portion is not the biggest problem. The oversimplification of almost every one of the specifics is the biggest problem I'm just going to outline my objections, in the hope that it will assist rewriting. I think that's all that can be expected at this stage. Policy like this takes many rounds and many weeks or months to get right.

My perception of the problem is that WP has much better methods for judging articles as a whole than for judging content; many articles in all subjects have major imbalances: erratic completion of the different aspects is general in all topics that are not greatly watched, OWNing is prevalent in those that are centered around topics of special interest, and continual change leading to homogenization and dilution of meaning in those that are subject to real conflict. I am not very optimistic what will be accomplished by proposals such as this, as long as we have no binding methods of enforcement--whatever may be said in statements like this, what is the procedures in case the article does not conform and those working on it refuse to change? WP:DR is a very blunt instrument, and I can frankly not recall any cases I've observed or participated in of successful use to challenge OWN. (I no longer respond to such requests--it invariable leads to frustration or reversal of all the good that's been done). All this does is give principles to quote, but enforcement depends on getting up a group as strong as the opposition, and if that's being the method rules are not the main concern. I do see one possible approach--the Fringe and RS noticeboards seem of some value. I'd like to see one on NPOV.
1.0 "However, the depth of Wikipedia's coverage must be balanced against the readability of its articles" that's not the balance problem. The most detailed of articles can be made perfectly readable by careful writing and arrangement, enabling readers to focus on what's wanted.
1.1 "should match the article's title" I think that's meaningless. To use the example given, an article titled "internet" will talk in some degree about a great many different things, including networking ,software, and even computers in general. the concept is known as "background". "Articles on very general subjects should serve as an introduction to the entire subject, and avoid going into detail on topics for which more specific articles exist." this makes sense only for the largest subjects--if applied generally, it will lead to excessive fragmentation.
1.2 "Wikipedia articles should be written in summary style," that's simply not true--only the very longest and most general should. The ones on history of various countries are good examples of where its needed. I would discourage, not encourage, sub-articles except when badly needed. They tend to involve saying everything several times over, and lead to problems with coordination and sourcing. One article on a novel is enough, at least 95% of the time. Most articles on writers do need need articles on the separate novels also. Articles on diseases are not better in subarticles on cause and therapy, and I don't think that the personal and political lives of politicians can be usefully separated.
1.3 "The bulk of Wikipedia's content consists of: basic description"... and "interactions" Again, not so. the content consists of basic description., coverage of other appropriate details, generally in a chronological fashion for the articles that permit, and then interactions. " Groups of disparate facts, such as "Trivia" lists, lack such context, and should be avoided." this doesn't solve very much--the question soon becomes what count as disparate facts, and then the question arises of whether they will be worse or better integrated into the articles. The question avoided here is what degree of minor detail should be included--and that's the key one, because that's where people basically disagree. I think, for example, that every use of a character in later works is relevant to an understanding of the cultural significance of a character, and that WP should be exhaustive, for we are uniquely positioned to make this possible--wiki editing is the best technique for doing this in a coordinated way that has yet been invented. others disagree, and I suppose this will have to be explicitly compromised.
1.3.1 "This is often the case with creative works that involve other subjects: they may have importance to the creative work, but only very famous uses will have a measurable effect on the subjects themselves" I simply do not understand this. In one sense its a tautology: the very famous uses are the ones that have major effects on the subject. Chevy Chase's skits on Ford were cited--they would be important because they did have an effect. That justifies including them prominently in a separate section perhaps, but those of lesser importance also had (lesser) effects. If the purpose is to avoid collecting in an article all the fun that is made of individual presidents, it's misguided: WP should do exactly that. As Jimbo said, "we make the internet not suck"--we collect all the significant parts from the really trivial, and anything in national media is among the significant, while most individual blog postings are the 99% of the internet to be filtered out.
2. Biographical details is a reference to other articles, not all of which are really that well accepted. So there is not point commenting on that here. Personally, I think that details of a persons private life is a suitable background in all cases for bios of those involved in anything publicly notable. But that's another issue.

so I answer the initial question in this section, the way to proceed to make this policy is to start all over again and write something that solves the problems, not just the immediate agenda. I recommend adaptation of a phrase we use with respect to WP:FRINGE, "proportional weight" .DGG (talk) 10:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

1.0: Article depth should be balanced thusly, however it should be made clear that the remedy to "too much depth" in a sub-topic is to spin-off the section into a separate article, rather than leaving that depth out entirely. No matter how well-written an article is, the very-long ones are still difficult to navigate. That's why when an article reaches a certain length, editors are shown a warning message that suggests splitting it up.

1.1: If you explain the background of computers etc. in an article entitled "Internet", you'll have a very long article. The individual components that make up a subject don't need explanation in that subject's article, except in summary style. That's the point of inline links and main article links. When a component of a subject is mentioned, and the reader needs further explanation of it in order to understand the subject at hand, he or she clicks the link. If you explain computers in every article that has to do with computers, you're going to have a lot of redundant information floating around.

1.2: Saying that only the "very longest" articles should be written in summary style is just one person's opinion. There are clear guidelines already for the article length and other circumstances that require summary style/separate articles. That having been said I think it is a bit of an overkill to say that Wikipedia articles in general should be written in summary style. That really is only supposed to be for long articles, where the sub-topics go into enough depth to warrant a separate article. This is a quick fix in wording though, I may even take care of that when I'm done here.

1.3: This part gets hazy for me. What is an interaction with another subject? Even the basic description could be counted as that, since other subjects will need to be mentioned within it. What's a toaster? Well, basically it's a device that toasts bread. There we've already mentioned bread, another subject with which the primary subject interacts. So I'm just saying this "interactions" thing might need to be rethought, in terms of wording. I don't think there's any actual disagreement here -- it's just that describing it as "interactions with other subjects" is a bit ambiguous; It doesn't truly distinguish one type of content from another, and it's extremely open to interpretation. But as for Trivia -- "we are uniquely positioned to make this possible" -- this is again just one person's opinion. Check Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections. Uniquely positioned or not, Wikipedia is just not meant for this.

1.3.1: "...collecting in an article all the fun that is made of individual presidents....WP should do exactly that." -- No, it shouldn't. Again, see the links above.

2.: Again this is another personal opinion that conflicts with set guidelines.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

23:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

(further replies Monday, aiming at possible agreements on some things--NYC meetup tomorrow)DGG (talk) 07:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been poking at a rewrite to fix at least a few of the points DGG made... the other points will require further discussion. Have fun at the meet.--Father Goose 19:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I've hopefully fixed 1.0. I'm starting to think I should merge "Article scope" and "Use summary style" together, as part of the fixes needed in those sections. I've also been thinking we should add something about how to maintain the focus of lists and list articles.--Father Goose 06:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. "Articles on very general subjects should serve as an introduction to the entire subject, and avoid going into detail on topics for which more specific articles exist." -- This sentence is right now at the end of the "Article scope" section; Yet this is the instance where summary style should be used, and summary style isn't mentioned until the next section. So yes they should be merged; Summary style is the proper way to handle a general subject that touches upon topics for which more specific articles exist.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

08:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I did a re-rewrite of 1.0 that I'm happy with. Instead of merging Article scope and Summary style, I just swapped them around. I added the line "The way in which those subjects relate to the Internet should be described, but all other information about them should be put in networking, software, and computers, respectively" to keep that section from being misinterpreted.

We could possibly change some of what is said about summary style. However, I don't think what's laid out at WP:SS is inapplicable to short articles; it gives an overview of general structure, and only encourages splitting when article size makes it necessary. I'd be willing to toss the link to SS in favor of something better, but it is a good overall guideline on how to structure Wikipedia articles.

"coverage of other appropriate details..." -- you'd have to give me some specifics here. It's possible we should add something like "providing background information (or context) is okay", although I've come to the conclusion that even background information is either "basic description" or "interactions", and interactions in particular should be kept lashed tightly to the subject at hand. Beyond a certain level of detail, you're describing a different subject. Barbara McClintock is a nice example of an article covering all sorts of secondary subjects which never strays from McClintock herself.

The Content section and the "two types of information" is both the most specific section of the whole proposal and the one that blazes the most new ground, so it is important to get it right. If it's too vague to be usable, or misworded in ways that are abusable, it'll need fixing. But I'll want to see examples that demonstrate how it's wrong; I can't respond to unspecific objections. Equazcion makes a good point about the potential overlap between basic description and "interactions". Nonetheless, I'm not so worried about these two categories being technically imprecise as long as the advice given is easy enough to understand and not prone to misinterpretation. I'm pretty sure what is specified in the Content section is for the most part accurate and practical; making any accurate generalizations about content is really hard, but I think these few lines help to lay out the nitty-gritty of how to "keep focused". What's said about these "two types" of content is more important than identifying them as two types of content. Maybe I'll just toss the last of the "categorization" concept with my next rewrite.

The specifics of "trivia lists" are covered by WP:TRIVIA; if it doesn't give a good enough explanation of what "disparate facts" are, then that guideline needs rewriting. This proposal doesn't say anything about non-trivia lists and list articles as yet, though at some point it should. The work on those specifics, as far as I know, is taking place at User:Sidatio/Conversations/On list guidelines, and we can incorporate what is decided there once that work is complete.

I'm not saying that Wikipedia should avoid collecting in an article all the fun that is made of individual presidents, but I am saying that the Gerald Ford article itself shouldn't have a big list of fun-made-of-Ford. I personally am completely okay with having a Gerald Ford in popular culture article, which could conceivably contain every verifiable pop-culture mention of him ever, but this proposal isn't the place to tackle pop-culture articles or list articles in general -- that work is being done elsewhere.

The Biographical details section lays out a sub-case of WP:BLP -- which is not only accepted, it's a Foundation issue, because it's a legal issue. The link to Wikipedia:Do no harm is useful because it summarizes the concept of "pseudo-biographies" really well. Because the concept of public figures vs. private persons is both a legal and Foundation issue, we can't ignore it -- we are bound by special rules where relevance of personal details are concerned.--Father Goose 00:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

There are a couple more proposals currently that impact on lists -Wikipedia:Proposed guideline for lists of people by ethnicity, religion, and other cultural categorizations and Wikipedia:Overlistification. Newbyguesses - Talk 03:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Some comments

I oppose having any policy or guideline about "relevance" on the grounds that if there were one, then Wikipedians would start calling things "irrelevant" which are about the topic but which aren't wanted in the article because they're not at the right level of detail, because they're trying to shorten that part of the article, because they already have similar material in the article, etc. In other words, they will use "irrelevant" to mean "this bit of information doesn't, in my opinion, meet the criteria of the Relevance guideline." That usage, if it were to happen, would be quite unfortunate.

I also oppose having such a policy or guideline on other grounds which I've stated previously. The current proposed guideline does nothing, in my opinion, besides ask editors to use common sense -- which they can save time by doing without having to read such a guideline first. It also gives editors a way to make it look as if their opinion is supported by a guideline: to someone who wants to put something into an article, it will probably appear to them that it obviously meets the criteria of this proposed guideline, because the wording in the guideline is so vague. Making the wording more specific won't help, either, as there's no way you can cover all cases. (For example, one could argue that nothing has "impact" on a mathematical object.) --Coppertwig 14:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we do not want a guideline that can be abused in the ways you describe. I will continue to work diligently to make sure the proposal is not written in a way that permits such abuses. If you feel certain parts of its current wording are abusable in that fashion, point those parts out, and we'll see what we can do to fix them.

In performing various trial runs of the proposal against several Featured Articles, I've come across several cases where much of the "common sense" advice is apparently very needed. Take a look at An_Experiment_on_a_Bird_in_the_Air_Pump#Historical_background, for instance. Most of the content in that section has absolutely nothing to do with the painting, and has simply been put in the wrong place. In earlier disussions with WikiLen, we discovered that a huge amount of the Andrew Kehoe article was unnecessarily duplicated in the FA Bath School disaster ([2]). I grant that the proposal should probably say a few specific things about "background material" -- but also give some pointers as to when such background material strays too far from the subject.

There are ongoing efforts to make the wording less vague. Be more specific in which parts you think are vague and we stand a better chance of fixing them. The "impact" concept from earlier drafts has been changed into "interactions", which still needs more work, but I think the proposal is not hopelessly flawed -- we can continue working to address your concerns.--Father Goose 20:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It's been my aim all along with this proposal to maximize retention of content by optimizing its placement. All too often, material is deleted simply because it's been put in the wrong article. I appreciate all feedback which helps to keep the proposal true to that original goal.--Father Goose 20:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for vagueness about which parts are vague. (Which parts do you think are un-vague?) I oppose having a title of the proposed guideline that emphasises the word "relevance" (e.g. "Relevance" or "Relevance of content") because people will, I expect, start calling things "irrelevant" just because in their opinion they don't meet the standard of relevance required. However, this is not a strong opposition and you can proceed without me if nobody else feels the same way. --Coppertwig 21:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

People already oppose content, citing irrelevance as a reason. But without a guideline, relevance is entirely subjective. At least this way there will be some definition of what constitutes relevance.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

22:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the guideline could be given more teeth, with shoulds and musts, if that is the way to go; defining terms more rigourously would also do that. Said by Father Goose just above is - ...this proposal to maximize retention of content by optimizing its placement. All too often, material is deleted simply because it's been put in the wrong article. That is the right idea, though stated as such it seems to suggest a style guideline, (a writing guideline) as well as a guide to inclusion/exclusion of content. Both are good plans, can they both be covered in the same guideline, or would that make it all too long? These issues are easily resolved; as it stands, the projectpage is aiming at "defining" relevance, and style issues (how to write) is a separate project, (either a link to a section of MOS, or a separate essay, if some editor were to develop ideas pertinent to the topic of "how to right more relevant prose" or such).

On the other hand, such ideas, if succinct, could be melded in to one projectpage, perhaps, depending on how editors can work together. I would favour keeping the projectpage to minimal length (it is currently about 25 sentences), so tighten it some more, and other ideas, about style, or such would be a separate essay topic. Not saying that's the only way to do it.

Sorts of phrases with more teeth could sound like such as "Important material should appear in the proper article, and it may not be necessary to include less important material" - "Point the reader to authoritative references (and list them properly), so that facts can be verified." ...(then how is important defined??) It just shows, that there is a need for such a guideline, and that need is being addressed on the projectpage with some success, improvement must always remain possible.Newbyguesses - Talk 23:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand Coppertwig's wariness towards sweeping words like "relevance" (or "trivia"); I've seen people cite WP:TRIVIA to delete trivia wholesale, which of course is not what that guideline says. But like Equazcion pointed out, people have been deleting "irrelevant" stuff long before this proposal got started. It's my feeling that if we can lay out a reasonable common standard -- obviously a tremendous challenge, but one that's been proceeding well -- we can end up with better-stuctured articles that are not stripped of all the fun details.

I'd say the proposal in its current form is quite general, which is not necessarily the same thing as vague. If there are specific parts that make you think "I don't understand this" or "this is saying the wrong thing", let us know, to give us a better chance of fixing it.--Father Goose 23:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

If I may, I would like to follow up on Coppertwig's point, (WikiLen)

...it will probably appear to them that it obviously meets the criteria of this proposed guideline, because the wording in the guideline is so vague. Making the wording more specific won't help, either, as there's no way you can cover all cases.

Father Goose faces two extremes that have no happy balance: (extreme 1) so vague that it fuels bogus claims of relevance and (extreme 2) so detailed that there are too many details to cover in one guideline. The current version was made more vague from an earlier version with details that did not work in certain cases. So what this means is Father Goose has to find a happy balance between not being too vague and not being too long. Asking "which parts ... are vague" addresses the wrong problem, i.e. the problem is: A happy balance seems not possible given the vastness of details to cover. —WikiLen 12:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The worst extremes I have faced have been exclamations like "not possible" and "this has no support". The first statement is an opinion, and the second statement is an invention. Will you let us get back to discussing and improving the proposal now?--Father Goose 23:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Replies to FG (his comment in italics):

• "The first statement is an opinion..." — This ignores the question: is a "happy balance" between vagueness and detail not possible given the vastness of material to cover? —WikiLen 20:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• "Will you let us get back to discussing and improving.." — see #Switch to Essay status, below. —WikiLen 18:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• "second statement is an invention" — Please say more on what you mean by "vastness of details to cover" is an "invention." Do we have different definition of details? By "details" I mean the unique issues of relevance that occur for the different types of articles in Wikipedia. One cannot be vague in addressing the differing needs for the various article types. The need to not be vague (i.e. be detailed) has been established in previous discussions. —WikiLen 20:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to offer a clarification: the "second statement" that I termed an invention was the claim that "this has no support", a claim that Kevin Murray has made a few times. The proposal has some support, which is not the same as "no support". It will of course need more support before it can become a guideline.--Father Goose 07:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

How to support Father Goose?

There is no consensus yet that we even need a guideline! I dont' see how responding to appeals to "give us a better chance of fixing it" will bring us closer to consensus on either needing or not needing one. I am opposed to going forward without that consensus. Furthermore, I find it very difficult to debate this guideline with two heads.

1. Yes need guideline, lets discuss what it should say.
2. No, don't need guideline, lets discuss pros and cons.

Father Goose is obviously very enthused about expanding his insights, gained from working with Trivia, to all of Wikipedia, however the lack of consensus on basic issues seems counter productive. Essentially we have two forks going again. The current Wikipedia:Relevance project and this proposal. In this context the only sensible option seems to be to let the current momentum proceed. Either it will succeed at crafting a Relevance policy out of the fertile soil of Trivia, or this attempt will receive a decent burial. It could take 6 months but either way a consensus would emerge. I can only trust that Father Goose's persistent 'tell me what to fix' comes from a faith that in fact he can fix it and faith like that can go a long way. —WikiLen 12:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not to say I am quiting this arena. I will complete any thread I am involved with here. I am just sifting my focus to discussions via the Village Pump or other discussion areas, using this as the way to work on the fundamental issues (not as a way discuss Father Goose's fork). Perhaps I can get these fundamental issues cleared up and then we would have a whole new arena. BTW: I will leave the fundamental issue of whether Father Goose's proposal belongs at Trivia or at Relevance alone. Also, when the fork here is posted to the Relevance 'guideline' I expect it to be done without any holding back. That is, everything possible will be done to get other editors to see it, comment on it, and revise it! How else to get consensus to emerge? (No hold on editing/reverting the project space while someone works off-line on improving it.) —WikiLen 12:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that there was any "hold" in place. Father Goose is working hard on this guideline, but I don't think he has any problem with other editors seeing or revising it. If there is a question of whether or not the guideline is even needed, then that's something to discuss here. If you or anyone has an objection to the guideline even existing, you should voice your concerns here so that we can begin that discussion and eventually come to a consensus. In the meantime I don't see any reason why the guideline shouldn't exist, in its "proposed", unimplemented, work-in-progress form. It gives everyone a visual idea of what they're arguing for or against.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

17:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The WP policy and custom is to have some closure on proposals which are not progressing. A serious problem at WP is instruction creep. Individually the addition of this guideline does little harm; however, the plethora of guidelines and policy pages has become overwhelming, redundant and in some cases contradictory. FG is working hard on this, but it concerns me that he has come to WP to write rules not an encyclopedia, as his participation at WP is rather recent and substantially limited to this project. I believe that experienced Wikipedians do not see a need for another guideline as there really is no serious problem with relevance within the articles. --Kevin Murray 18:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well then let's hope some of those experienced Wikipedians come here to discuss the matter, so we can get an actual idea of their feelings rather than relying on conjecture. I consider myself somewhat experienced, and my time here has been spent editing articles. I've only very recently become interested in influencing policy, by chance, because of this whole Trivia controversy.

But you know what? That shouldn't matter. I don't think there's any need to cite an editor's credibility, or lack thereof, in any argument. We should be judging the guideline, or the need for the guideline, on its merits alone, and not by who is writing it. Besides, we're not dealing with a self-appointed dictator here. This is Wikipedia. Father Goose happens to have taken the most interest in this issue, but anyone who feels they could do a better job is welcome at any time to contribute.

Your point about too many guidelines is a good one, and it's helpful to the discussion of whether or not this guideline should be put into practice. But your concern about Father Goose himself is separate, irrelevant, and purely political. Even the newest user can have a good idea. Let's stick to discussing the merit of the idea and the manner in which to possibly implement it, instead of arguing over who is experienced enough to say what.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

21:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

That is all fine and good and for the most part true; however, FG has been pushing this issue for some time without gaining any support or consensus. The onus is on the proponents to demonstrate a need and support of the community. This concept has been widely advertised and has not attracted interest. It was dead at its prior location where the merits were discussed ad nauseum. It's time to bury the dead and move on. --Kevin Murray 22:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I would oppose abandoning this. Just because the idea failed once doesn't mean we can't give it another shot. There are mistakes to be learned from, and perhaps it can succeed this time. Then again, perhaps not -- but there's no harm in trying. This specific attempt isn't even two weeks old yet, and I only learned of it 5 days ago. I think it's a little early to be burying it. It's still being edited heavily, and the right wording will, I think, play an important part in gaining support. Let's give it a chance.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

22:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I respect your support for FG and this proposal, and I also respect the excellent work that he has done on this project. Though I don't substantially disagree with the format and content, I just don't see a need compelling enough to justify yet another further guideline. This is where I question the experience level of the prime-proponent, not the quality of the work. If this could be logically adopted into another guideline I would support. If I could be convinced that there is a real problem, I would support this guideline. --Kevin Murray 22:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been around for awhile, and I understand the mainspace pretty well. We really need something like this policy; relevance is a very real problem. --Eyrian 22:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this could be very helpful. There are frequent arguments about the inclusion of content, one side saying something is relevant and the other side saying it's not. The problem is that there currently is no definition of relevance. It's entirely subjective. If a guideline were in place, it would help to settle a lot of the endless bickering that centers around relevance.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

22:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• OK, I might be wavering a bit here in my opposition, but if it is such a big problem why aren't more people advocating a guideline. Despite FG's hard efforts the guideline seems a bit ambiguous and overly reliant on samples. I'm not sure that this removes much subjectivity. Can someone give an example or two of specific articles where this could have helped? --Kevin Murray 01:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right that it's currently a bit ambiguous, which is something being worked on, but it's not exactly reliant on examples. It does contain a lot of examples, because the language required to describe this issue tends to be very abstract. It can be technically accurate yet still be very confusing to the average person. Examples help illustrate what the guideline is saying in more familiar terms.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

02:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd say more people haven't been advocating it for several reasons. It's a damned complex issue with few completely-obvious fixes. This proposal would have much more vocal support (and opposition) if it just said something like "ban trivia", which is not a useful approach. You're also incorrectly characterizing a lack of commentary as a lack of consensus: "Silence equals consent" should be the default assumption.

Furthermore, the proposal wasn't that good at first. It's taken a lot of work to make it a plausible approach to the subject. That work was made much more complicated by the messiness of the proposal's first months, which also obscured people's responses to it and made it difficult to promote more aggressively. As it was, I was focusing more on improving it than promoting it, because people tend to never take a second look if the first impression isn't good.

The first draft was completely based on examples, which was a mistake. I stripped out all but two fairly straightforward ones (Internet and jet) in subsequent drafts. I recently added the pair of Ford examples to make one aspect of the proposal clearer. When you say it's "overly reliant on samples", I wonder if you're not thinking of that first draft. Also, you ask for a couple of examples for your own elucidation not two sentences later. My goal is to make the proposal work fine without any examples, and better with a few.--Father Goose 04:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Miscellaneous responses

Man, there's so many things here to respond to. I'll bullet it.

• First of all, some background on the proposal to date: after I posted my first draft, WikiLen sought to write a complete replacement of it. He was courteous to hold off on that until I could complete my second draft (in response to the initial feedback), but he still did pretty much a complete rewrite shortly thereafter. I returned the courtesy to him and left it in place for a while, which left respondents confused about which version ("fork") they were viewing. Ultimately we took both forks off the Wikipedia:Relevance page so they could be evaluated independently. Both underwent additional rewriting; after a couple of weeks, at least some support had emerged for my version and there was no evidence of support for his (most recent version), so mine was replaced at Wikipedia:Relevance. User:Edgarde then embarked on a substantial rewrite, which I reverted with edgarde's permission, though I integrated many of his changes into my next draft. WikiLen reverted this to the pre-proposal version of the page, Kevin Murray did the same when I reverted WikiLen, and I just renamed the whole thing so I could start the next round of publicity and discussion without having to worry about whether the proposal would even be on the advertised page. It's had a convoluted history, but I think the proposal itself has progressed well, and is within striking distance of attaining consensus. I'm completely okay with further discussion and revision.
• Claiming that consensus is needed to establish whether there should be a guideline is preposterous. That's like forming a committee to decide if there should be a committee. On Wikipedia, you do stuff, then you discuss it. Yet a claim that consensus is needed first was used to shut down discussion of the proposal at the prior location: [3]. It's hard to promote, discuss, or "show consensus" for a proposal when someone is basically blanking it. That's why I moved it here -- to sidestep the disruption that was taking place there.
• It was never "dead at its prior location" -- there was a lot of pushing and pulling, and it also needed a lot of work. A proposal as sweeping in scope as this one should not be rushed -- to the grave or otherwise. What's on this page now is something like the fifth draft, and we're about to head into the sixth. As you can see here, Kevin Murray has simply pretended that these discussions don't exist and that the proposal has no support. It never failed, but its first month or two was fairly messy. Hopefully we're past that now.
• Kevin Murray has impugned my experience and motivation in the past, and I consider that just rotten. It will do me no good, but I will not resist the temptation to sling a little mud back. It is true that I have fewer than 500 mainspace edits -- with this account. I've done several hundred more edits as an IP. It should be plain from my first edit with this account that that was not my "first edit ever". It should also be clear from that edit that I tend to do my edits offline, then post them in aggregate, which lowers my "edit count". Kevin Murray, with five times "as many" edits as me, has quite a bit of this in his edit history: 19 edits over 23 minutes which added 14 images and three paragraphs to a single article. I'd like to suggest he start using "Show preview" and "Minor edit".
• I am not a policy wonk. My work on this proposal has been no damn fun at all. I would love to get back to just writing articles. But I saw a community-level conflict that was affecting the encyclopedia's content and presentation, and I've been working hard to reduce that conflict and improve Wikipedia's content via that work ever since. If Mr. Murray respects the excellent work that I have done on this project, why has he shown such a preponderance of bad faith? Bloody hell.--Father Goose 03:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

My goodness all we need is a good conspiracy theory, or did I miss something? --Kevin Murray 16:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You did. Your prejudice against policy, which I actually respect to some degree, doesn't justify treating individuals prejudiciously.--Father Goose 17:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Switch to Essay status

I see no harm in letting Father Goose continue to develop his proposal here in Essay status and then post it to the Relevance project space whenever he thinks he has a version that will fly or needs broader comments. He is really trying to do three incompatible things at once (1) Defend it's very existence as a proposal and (2) Get feedback on how to improve it (3) Establish he has a consensus for it... : - (WikiLen)

1. Essay status frees us all from wasting time on debating the need for a proposal when the proposal is not even ready to be submitted. We should reserve judgment on its existence for those times when he has something to submit.
2. As an essay, FG will be able to focus on getting it ready for submission. Also, he might be able to add links to it at other places which could bring additional editors to help him.
3. The only real way to establish consensus is to post at the Relevance project space, tagged as a guideline (or proposal), and then see what consensus—or lack of—emerges at that project's talk page. Talk anywhere else is a poor predictor of consensus.

It is only by exhausting all possibilities that FG is going to feel that his efforts have either achieved a "decent burial" or have found fruition. Given the current context, the most efficient approach is to proceed forward as an essay. As FG stated himself, "A proposal as sweeping in scope as this one should not be rushed." Constantly keeping FG's work as a proposal seems to be rushing it given that it is a proposal for a new policy and given that the content keeps undergoing radical changes. He has said "I'm in the middle of another rewrite" in various forms many times. Rewrites are new proposals. Proposal space is not the place for rejected proposals to sit while a rewrite is done. In my estimation, FG's work will eventually lead to something useful being put into guideline(s) for Trivia and related lists. —WikiLen 18:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I intend to change the status of this "Relevance for content" to "Essay." When each new version (rewrite) is ready as proposal, please post as such to the Relevance project space and submit it again as a proposed new policy at the Village Pump. —WikiLen 18:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not my proposal. I've been the proposal's primary -- but not exclusive -- author, and its biggest advocate. But stop characterizing it as "mine" and keeping on with a "his vs. mine" mentality here. Stop pretending that I control it -- I don't -- and stop trying to control the dialogue over it. Let those who want to discuss the proposal discuss the proposal. Join that discussion. Stop telling everyone else how they should be discussing things. If you have an opinion, state it, and don't cloak it in impersonal passive voice as though it were a fact.

I swear, I've got friction burns on my wrists from these two. For my own sanity, I will stop responding to them, and get back to discussing the proposal with people who are here to discuss the proposal, not to discuss me.--Father Goose 20:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

My replies to Father Goose (italics are quotes of FG): - (WikiLen)

• "Stop telling everyone else how they should be discussing things" — You must mean this that I wrote:

When each new version (rewrite) is ready as proposal, please post as such to the Relevance project space and submit it again as a proposed new policy at the Village Pump.

We haven't been doing that. My read of policy says we need to be. I apologize for speaking as if I am an authority instead of just quoting the policy:

Proposals should be advertised to solicit feedback and to reach a consensus.

If no one submits to the Village Pump I will. If you disagree please discuss it.

• "get back to discussing the proposal with people who are here to discuss the proposal, not to discuss me" — To quote from the first sentence you wrote at the top of this page:

  This project was formerly at Wikipedia:Relevance, but was moved here [by Father Goose] due to a dispute over that page's history.

  Father Goose, this seems to be doing an end run around Wikipedia policy. Your intent is obviously to keep it alive as a proposal without being accountable to the consensus (or lack of) reached at the Relevance project page. This action made you a topic of discussion — i.e.: should we let you keep it alive as a proposal or not. Since all you really want to do is develop it into a form that will get acceptance, it seems we have a perfect solution at hand. Switch this to an essay and submit as a proposal each time anyone feels a new version ready.

Additional replies to FG are at his talk page. —WikiLen 04:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing obvious here. Only opinions. I'm not sure what you're so afraid of, WikiLen. If this project is so doomed to failure as you suggest, I would think you would simply allow it to run its course and fail. There's no legitimate concern that a proposed guideline could possibly become a real guideline unless it gained a lot of support, so I think the more "obvious" conclusion here is that you are afraid it will gain that support. Otherwise your opposition to something so benign as a proposed guideline simply makes no sense. What does make sense is that demoting it to essay status makes it much less of a threat, to you and others who don't want this guideline to succeed.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

08:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Is an Essay a really a demotion? It just means it does not have consensus — true in this case. When ready to have another go at it, just switch it back to a proposal or even a guideline. —WikiLen 10:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am concerned that if it sits here as a "Proposal"—out of the critical eye of the Village Pump, etc.—that when submitted again, it will have assumed a false air of consensus due to the weeks or months of sitting here hidden away. That I point out there are rules against 'hiding' a proposal is really the wisdom of the community harnessing my self-interest — a good thing. —WikiLen 10:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

...in your opinion. And show me some guideline that says a proposed guideline that doesn't have a consensus should be changed to an essay -- or that an essay is essentially a proposed guideline with no consensus. We're ready to have another go at it now, and it's not finished yet, so it's a proposed guideline. That's how this works. I'm sorry you're afraid that some imaginary consensus will be perceived, but you'll just have to get over your fears and have some faith in the processes developed to handle these situations at Wikipedia.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

15:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

See #Switch made, below, for my rationale on switching to "Essay" and for the official policy that supports my action. —WikiLen 17:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

one at a time

I continue to disagree with individual statements of the proposal, (as well as with the overall approach, and with the general intent). Going one at a time starting from the end, number 2.o about people should simply be a reference to the other policy page, not an attempt to encapsulate it. Trying to summariasze the gist of complicated policy--especially when the details are debatable--will breed inconsistencies. DGG (talk) 03:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

DGG (talk) 03:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't make much sense if it were just links without any additional explanation. It's only summarizing a single paragraph of WP:BLP. I changed the link to point to that paragraph. Is the summary wrong?--Father Goose 07:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Switch made

The status of this project has been changed to "Essay." Having this project tagged as a "Proposal" is in violation of Wikipedia policy on two counts:

1. Wikipedia Policies and guidelines states, "proposals should be advertised to solicit feedback and to reach a consensus" — not a "Proposal" if you don't do that.
2. Wikipedia Policies and guidelines also states, "amendments to a proposal should be discussed on its talk page (not on a new page)." Discussion on this is not happening at the "Relevance" talk page. As Father Goose himself stated,

   The most sensible title is, and always was, Relevance, but I changed its name so that discussion of it could continue without disruption.

   Not a "Proposal" if discussion does not happen at the correct place.

Tagging this new version as a proposal (on Relevance) requires submission at the Village Pump and posting to the correct project space. This is not a big issue. When the consensus here says its is ready... make it a proposal. However, it seems inappropriate to flag this as a "Proposal" when there are apparently no editors ready to exercise the responsibilities that go along with such. —WikiLen 05:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It's been advertised on several pages, for the purpose of soliciting feedback, in an attempt to reach a consensus. This is the talk page of the proposal. I moved the proposal and the talk page here so you wouldn't keep blanking the proposal at the other page. There's nothing in existence that says a proposal ceases to be a proposal because it's been edited, or because those changes haven't been advertised. Read WP:NOBOOK.

If you want to try WikiLawyer this situation -- which doesn't work anyway, because sense trumps law -- you'd need to find a rule that's actually been violated, and you also want to find one that actually exists.

This thing is a proposal because it is a proposal. Wishful thinking -- including opposition to it -- does not make it otherwise.--Father Goose 17:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Father Goose, my main issue is on whether a proposal for a new policy is free to keep a "Proposal" tag even after the bid for the new policy has been rejected. Obviously, if you were making a revision to a previously existing proposal the proposal would remain a proposal even if your revision was rejected. But in this case, there was no previously existing proposal — meaning rejection reverts to no proposal (or one flagged with the { { rejected } } tag). Therefore everything hinges on whether the "FG 3.x" version was in fact rejected.

To clarify, I don't take it as a given that "rejection reverts to no proposal" when a proposal is for a new policy. Yes, I need to address the arguments FG has against that, but all this could be moot if "not rejected" is the consensus. Then there is no basis for my asserting this should be an Essay while submission to the Village Pump is pending. Hence, the question, "Was version "FG 3.x" rejected?" needs to be answered first. —WikiLen 23:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Was version "FG 3.x" rejected?

see 16:07, 30 July 2007 — the "FG 3.x" version at Relevance before Relevance was reverted to the "umbrella" version.

see the "three questions" (FG 3.x) (diff)version at Relevance before Relevance was reverted to the "umbrella" version.

I submit these as evidence for "yes": - (WikiLen)

1. This proposal (formerly referred to as the "FG 3.x" version of the "FG Fork") is not in the project space for "Relevance", the place where FG asserts this belongs.
2. At Wikipedia talk:Relevance#Moving forward issues FG admitted defeat on the "FG 3.x" version. His words: "Earlier this week, I was finally able to see that the 'three questions' were not going to be an effective approach." The "three questions" approach was the essence of his proposal.
3. Official policy states, "a rejected page is any proposal for which consensus support is not present...". The "FG 3.x" version at Relevance was reverted for that very reason.
4. Also from the same policy, "It is considered bad form to hide this fact [that a proposal is rejected]...". Moving the project from "Relevance" to "Relevance for content", was done, so FG says, because of "disputes over the page history" — this amorphous reason hides the fact that "FG 3.x" was reverted.
5. If we were to accept some of the casual reasoning here on what qualifies as a Proposal, then everybody under the sun could declare their own proposals. All they would have to do is submit a proposal, allow it to be reverted, move it to a different page, and then declare it remains as a proposal. Obviously not a good system. If we recognize complete "revert" means "rejected" then we avoid this.

[premature, so crossed out, WikiLen] It seems the best way forward is to submit this new version—when ready—at the Village Pump. As I understand it, submitting a "rewrite [of] a rejected proposal" removes the "Rejected" status. —WikiLen 21:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

What you fail to point out is that the reversion to the "umbrella version" was performed first by you, then by Mr. Murray. The two of you blanked a proposal you were antagonistic to, and now you want to claim your own actions as evidence that it was rejected? Your personal objection to something does not give you the right to peremptorily wipe it away.

And you still don't understand that Wikipedia operates on common sense, not on selective legal interpretation.--Father Goose 01:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

this was rejected--or, more precisely, it did not gather any support or consensus in its favor. Rejected is the word. There is no reason why the supporters could not try again, at a reasonable time, but--quite frankly--I think the direction of things here is moving away from their point of view. DGG (talk) 03:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you familiar with its history at its prior location? I didn't move it because it was "rejected"; I moved it because two activist opponents of it were blanking it. They did not outnumber its supporters, although they were prepared to act more aggressively. I chose not to rally the proposal's supporters into an edit war with WikiLen and Kevin Murray, or to engage in one myself, as I saw nothing constructive coming out of that -- just as I see nothing constructive coming out of the edit war that they have ultimately initiated here.

Renaming the proposal might come off as a "sneaky" move, but blanking the proposal as they had done was far worse, and I moved it here to sidestep such disruption. The blanking campaign came immediately after a major revision, which I was about to promote further, but the blanking made it impossible to promote: I couldn't direct people's attention to a proposal that was in an edit war and/or blanked from the page.

It was a similar problem with the fork WikiLen insisted on posting to the proposal page early on; promotion I had done for the proposal encountered "his fork", and his fork met with no approval, further confusing the reception the original proposal received. But again, I didn't want to edit war with him, so I left his fork in place long enough for it to become clear that it had no support. When the supporters of the original proposal replaced it on the proposal page, WikiLen soured on the project, and finally chose to blank the proposal as described above. Kevin Murray opportunistically supported WikiLen's blanking -- just as he has supported the "demotion" here -- with little more than ad hominem attacks and claims that it has "no support", which is clearly not the case. This proposal has quite a few supporters who should not be ignored in favor of the aggressiveness of its detractors.

You yourself have expressed opposition to the proposal in its current state. I have no problem with that, because you have been willing to address specific points about it you don't like, which gives us the chance to discuss and fix some of them. Even though you're "an opponent", I still value your participation because you're actually participating, and our conversations have been constructive. You'll note that WikiLen and Kevin Murray have said almost nothing other than "proposal failed!" -- their comments are completely focused on rejecting it, on legalistic or prejudicial grounds, and they have shown no willingness to discuss its content.

It's true that things have not been "going our way" since the start of this edit war -- but that's true of anyone upon whom a war gets foisted. The willingness of two users to engage in an edit war should not be sanctified as a "rejection".--Father Goose 04:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• More denial and misundestanding of the processes. Rejection is implied by failure to succeed in gaining support. --Kevin Murray 13:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I am in favour of work currently continuing on this proposed guideline, if enough interested editors continue to work to address specific points raised in discussion on the talkpage. It appears to me that ongoing work and discussion could lead to acceptance of the proposed guideline, and there is no need to truncate such work prematurely. Newbyguesses - Talk 23:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record: "Blanking", as used here, refers to reverting the Relevance project to the pre-proposal version, also called the Umbrella version. At this project, "Relevance of content", an edit war is happening over the "Proposal" tag. —WikiLen 07:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiLen follow up to FG (FG in italics):

• "no willingness to discuss its content" — correct (now).
• "Renaming the proposal might come off as a 'sneaky' move" — Whatever FG's intent, one must admit his actions do look like an attempt to sidestep a "rejected" status — not a good thing. Also, as noted at the top of #Switch made, this 'sneakiness' violates WP policy. Perhaps FG is boldly invoking WP:IAR.
• "I chose not to rally the proposal's supporters into an edit war" — I recommend rallying support and gaining "Proposal" status by resubmitting to the Village Pump.

Is version "FG 3.x" rejected? — the question remains. WikiLen 07:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to attempt to shine some light onto the current dispute. WikiLen, if I may ask you, why does Wikipedia have a rule called "Ignore all rules"? What ideas does it embody? This is a totally serious question on my part.--Father Goose 08:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Without looking it up — WP:IAR provides freedom to make edits in violation of rules when following such rules would run against the mission of Wikipedia. Of course, it is not freedom to make edits in opposition to a consensus. Thanks for submitting to the Village Pump. I am amazed at this August traffic. Page history there is barely moving... —WikiLen 01:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Fresh Eyes

For the most part, I find the guideline very clear. I did run into trouble in the Content Section. The opening "Basic description," is not a problem; it's the "Interacts with other subjects" where things get muddy. I wonder if ditching the multiple subjects (which creates a bit of a "party of the second part" tone) might help:

* Factors that have influenced the subject's form, role, history, public perception or other noteworthy traits. The effects of these factors on the subject should be apparent; if they are not, additional context is needed. Groups of disparate facts, such as "Trivia" lists, lack such context and should be avoided.

I also find the current Interactions between subjects convoluted. I think here it may be the formality of the language. I wonder if it would be beneficial to tone it down and spin it out--make it more explicit, but with simpler language

A fact that connects two subjects may be appropriate for mention in the article of one, but not the other. This is often the case with creative works: what is important within the creative work may not exert a measurable influence on the other subject. For instance, Chevy Chase's depictions of U.S. President Gerald Ford enforced the public perception of Ford's clumsiness and may merit mention in the articles of both Chevy Chase and Gerald Ford. However, a later depiction of Ford as one of The X Presidents had little effect on him and probably has no place in the article of the former president.

The main goal here, in my opinion, is increasing readability (in a very real Flesch-Kincaid kind of way). I think change such as the above might aid in that goal. --Moonriddengirl 00:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I have been meaning to rewrite that section. Thanks for your suggestions.--Father Goose 02:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Good idea

This essay is a good idea, though it needs expanding. In some ways, the ideas are similar to those seen at WP:CONTEXT. Carcharoth 00:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

A good guide to providing context is given at Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Principle of least astonishment, which is relevant, though actually a style guideline, rather than a content guideline. Newbyguesses - Talk 01:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Try to bridge each sentence with the sentence before it by using an idea or word that appears in both sentences. Use consistent vocabulary in parts that are technical and difficult. To decide which parts of the sentence are going to be difficult for the reader, try to anticipate the reader's resistance to the ideas.

— Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Principle of least astonishment

• You could also add something on how footnotes can be used to move tangential points out of the main flow of an article, but still retain them "closer" than in links to other articles. Also, I find it useful, when mentioning a person, work, building, object, to sometimes briefly describe it, as well as link it. For example, "20th-century French novelist Claude Simon", instead of just "Claude Simon", and "T. S. Eliot's The Waste Land (1922)", instead of just "The Waste Land". For an example of a good use of a footnote, see here. Carcharoth 12:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with those ideas, but that's drifting into style matters, and I'd rather not go beyond the scope of a content guideline. Nonetheless, I'll see what I can do to suffuse some of these new suggestions into the proposal.--Father Goose 17:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Carcharoth, your thinking resonates with Wikipedia. Your footnote suggestion has already been addressed at the style guideline on footnotes. It states:

Footnotes are useful for material that would be distracting if included in the main text, yet is helpful in explaining a point in greater detail.

And your second point is amply addressed at the Guide to writing better articles: Provide context for the reader. —WikiLen 18:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Relevance of lists

I have to admit that the proposal currently fails to say anything about "relevant lists". This is a tricky subject which is probably the most contentious "relevance" issue on Wikipedia right now. We'll have to tackle it. I'm specifically referring to embedded lists, as list articles are governened by different standards than regular articles.

The consensus against "trivia lists" (not specificially trivia itself) is pretty well established, but attitudes toward "popular culture" and several other list types are still in play. I am personally for the retention of popular culture information, but only when its relation to the subject is meaningfully asserted. I'm also for "popular culture" list articles on their own, since it's easy to keep them focused on a single subject: verifiable references to subject Y.

So. What do we need to say about lists?--Father Goose 18:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I note WikiProject Lists includes these in its list of goals:

• Make all lists conform to the standards of Featured list criteria.
• Maintain and develop the list guidelines and help pages.

Why duplicate their work here? WikiProject Lists already has 7 guidelines addressing list policy. If rules specific to "in popular culture" are required, they need only be added to one of those guidelines. FYI: "Featured list criteria" (not a guideline) has the best definition for list-relevance that I've seen:

...a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study, and where the members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles.

Nice... and back to the dispute, I request that we use "in popular culture", as a focus for discussions regarding the position I and others hold: Rules for Relevance if not too obvious or vague then belong as rules somewhere else. —WikiLen 00:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal rejected

From what I read there is no consensus for acceptance and little expectation. Since FG will not accept that this be an essay, it should be marked as a rejected proposal. --Kevin Murray 00:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I find "rejected" makes sense. In the table below I critique each significant sentence of the proposal as of 17 August 2007. I find everything is either obvious, too vague, or belongs as — or already is — a rule elsewhere. —WikiLen 02:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC) — refactored 00:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Section	Quote from section (see 17 August 2007)	Critique by WikiLen
Keep articles focused	[ Critiquing whole section ]	Focus is a style issue — amply addressed at Guide to writing better articles
Keep articles focused	"Wikipedia articles should be of finite size"	Size is already addressed at Wikipedia:Article size and Summary style.
Keep articles focused	"dense with information only tenuously connected..."	A lists issue; belongs at guidelines for lists.
Use summary style	[ Critiquing whole section ]	A repeat of what is already in Wikipedia:Summary style.
Article scope	"Articles on very general subjects should ... avoid ... detail on topics for which more specific articles exist."	Just a summary of what Wikipedia:Summary style says.
Article scope	"The topics an article covers should match the article's title"	Obvious.
Content	"All of Wikipedia's content must be verifiable"	Wikipedia:Verifiability handles this.
Content	"This type of information should be put in the article lead..."	already covered at Wikipedia:Lead section.
Content	"Factors that have influenced subject's ... noteworthy traits. The effects of these factors on the subject should be plainly apparent; if they are not, additional context is needed."	Too vague.
Content	"disparate facts ... should be avoided"	Repeats what is at Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections.
Interactions between subjects	[ Critiquing whole section ]	A list issue; belongs at guidelines for lists.
Biographical details	[ Critiquing whole section ]	Already at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.

Rejection assessed in summary

Gathered collection of support for rejection (compiled by KM) —WikiLen 01:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• this was rejected--or, more precisely, it did not gather any support or consensus in its favor. Rejected is the word. There is no reason why the supporters could not try again, at a reasonable time, but--quite frankly--I think the direction of things here is moving away from their point of view. DGG (talk) 03:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC) (copied from above)
• The current proposed guideline does nothing, in my opinion, besides ask editors to use common sense -- which they can save time by doing without having to read such a guideline first. It also gives editors a way to make it look as if their opinion is supported by a guideline: to someone who wants to put something into an article, it will probably appear to them that it obviously meets the criteria of this proposed guideline, because the wording in the guideline is so vague. Making the wording more specific won't help, either, as there's no way you can cover all cases. (For example, one could argue that nothing has "impact" on a mathematical object.) --Coppertwig 14:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC) (copied from Relevance)
• Could we just make it a redirect to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not? Simplicity. / edg ☺ ★ 04:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC) (copied from relevance)
• Despite the machinations of FG, there has been clear rejection of this. He just wears people down with rhetoric and venue shifting along with a constant circle of meaningless rewrites. --Kevin Murray 05:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• I think this is the decent burial we have been looking for. —WikiLen 11:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Rejection procedures

"A rejected page is any proposal for which consensus support is not present, regardless of whether there is active discussion or not. Consensus need not be fully opposed; if consensus is neutral on the issue and unlikely to improve, the proposal is likewise rejected. It is considered bad form to hide this fact, e.g. by removing the tag. Making small changes will not change this fact, nor will repetitive arguments. Generally it is wiser to rewrite a rejected proposal from scratch and start in a different direction." (quoted from Policies and guidelines, see [4]) --Kevin Murray 15:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

A mediation is pending — what to do with it? The impasse that led to the mediation — as I saw it — was FG's refusal to resubmit to the Village Pump for his new version which would be required if his "three questions" (FG 3.x) (diff) version at Relevance was "rejected." The impasse was not over a "rejected" status of this complete rewrite at Relevance of content — can't reject something never submitted. (He incorrectly phrased the mediation case as about the rejected status of "Relevance of content" instead of "Relevance" — I missed that until now.) That he finally did resubmit seems to have removed the need for mediation. But there is enough ambiguity to put confusion in my mind as to whether the "rejected" tag should be added to this while the mediation case is not closed. —WikiLen 16:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Regardless I see the proper status as being rejected. If the mediation demonstrates otherwise, we can remove the tag. Mediation will undoubtedly draw-out and the project is not served by perpetual proposals which confuse XfD discussions etc. FG has set the ground rules by continuing to manipulate redirects etc. after proposing mediation. --Kevin Murray 16:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

According to the policy quoted above, I think the only thing keeping the trivia guideline in its "un-rejected" state is that there once may have been a consensus for it. What's there is far from a consensus, and if it were submitted now, for the first time, it would need to be rejected on similar grounds. With the length of time the trivia controversy has been going on for, and how strongly all the different opponents feel, the guideline's state of consensus is not likely to improve. It's the same situation, only the trivia guideline was accepted at some point before. In light of this, maybe we should change the trivia guideline's status to "Essay". :)

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

23:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Though I am not that familiar with the controversy at Trivia, your description points out a problem at WP. It is much harder to eliminate a bad or ineffective guideline than to reject a new proposal. Being that guidelines are hard to rescind, it makes it all the more critical that we be cautious in adopting new ones. --Kevin Murray 23:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I actually tried switching WP:TRIVIA to "essay" months ago for the reasons Equazcion describes, and got shot down. The work on this guideline has been an attempt to address the faults and omissions of that guideline. Which is not to say that the two should be merged; this bird's-eye view of the subject of "relevance" is needed in concert with the much-narrower recommendations at WP:TRIVIA. Due to the absence of this guideline, however, that guideline's recommendations are not narrow enough, citing "irrelevance" as an open-ended deletion criterion. WP:NOT#TRIVIA is doing the very same thing at this moment. I again claim we need this guideline as a bulwark against open-ended deletion of material.

And Kevin, I say to you, if I haven't somehow said it yet, fix this proposal's faults, such as they may be, instead of aborting it, just in case it might commit a crime some day. The faults of WP:TRIVIA were in place, unaddressed, when it was "promoted" via a rigged poll. Contribute to fixing this proposal now so that it goes into the field with the right alignment, and can be used to counteract the guidelines that advance a deletionist agenda.--Father Goose 00:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but, there can be no contributions until the page-protection comes off. Ought we to discuss that? Newbyguesses - Talk 00:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

FG, I don't think that it is possible to fix. We could try better examples, but any set of examples unless ridiculously exhaustive would leave too much ambiguity. This concept can not be regulated with objective criteria; the standards must be determined and applied by good editors on a case by case basis. --Kevin Murray 00:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to be able to edit the page. Is anyone prepared to discuss getting the page unprotected? A suggestion has been made at the mediation case. Newbyguesses - Talk 01:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I tried it again, FG. Let's see what happens. Kevin, I think with the policy you quoted, and your response to my statement, you should support the change for Trivia.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

01:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

FG, please summarize your objective for Trivia in a note to my talk page or by Email. It's likely that I will support you on this. Thanks. --Kevin Murray 01:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean me, Kevin? FG didn't change Trivia's status -- I did (FG did it once in the past, but this time it was me).

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

01:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Discuss that projectpage's edit history on that talkpage. This page isnt being editted because it is protected. Newbyguesses - Talk 03:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Content, and style guideline options

A Guideline on "Relevance of content" descends from WP:FIVE and WP:NOTE. There is — ( )...a common misunderstanding as regards notability. What this guideline does not ask is "Is it notable to you?" That's WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and means nothing. What it is asking is to verify that something is notable, by showing that reliable sources unaffiliated with the subject have actually taken significant note of it. Like any article writing, we should reflect reliable sources, not second guess them—copied from Wikipedia talk:Notability —Newbyguesses - Talk 12:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ with that statement. This proposal's relation to WP:NOTE is incidental, and it descends from WP:FIVE only in the respect that all of Wikipedia's "rules" should descend from those principles. This proposal has a purpose independent of other guidelines that should be spelled out on its own terms.--Father Goose 17:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I felt it important that the obvious be stated, that all rules and guidelines should descend from those principles, WP:FIVE (no link needed, here thanks, WikiLen, WP:FIVE is familiar to us all, some have read it and understood it.) Your constant refactoring, WikiLen, is simetimes helpfu, but very confusing mostly, and I wish you would not refactor, or cut in on, my occasional posts. Newbyguesses - Talk 22:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

All right, fair enough.--Father Goose 03:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Newbyguesses, mea culpa's and boring defense of myself regarding refactoring are at my talk page.

Refactoring should only be done when there is an assumption of good faith by editors who have contributed to the talk page. —Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages

I have apparently burned that good-faith bridge with this refactoring. In the future, I will only refactor—if at all—when I have explicit consent to do so. —WikiLen 16:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, back to basics

(Hopefully this will start the discussion over shaping it into "style guideline" instead of being treated as a platform for more rejection rejection rejection monomania.)

My assessment:

• "Keep articles focused" - not perfectly worded, but an adequate introduction to the issues on the table.
• "Use summary style" - we need some sort of "how to structure articles" overview. The page at WP:SS does this even though it ostensibly for long articles. Is there a better page to link to?
• "Article scope" - not wrong, but could probably be tightened up a bit.
• "Content" - needs the most rewriting. Saying that descriptive material should come first is sensible, and important to say. Something like "So-and-so was born in Chicago" at the end of a paragraph or section makes it look like a disconnected factoid instead of very basic and highly relevant information.
• "Factors" (formerly "interactions") - still muddled. Somewhere in there is the important point: many other subjects may have have an influence on the main subject, but stick to how they affected the main subject; put all material about the other subjects which don't have a direct influence on the main subject into articles about those other subjects.
• "Interactions between subjects" - probably needs to be blended in with the "factors" paragraph above better. A better example than the "Ford" pair has been requested but I have yet to find one.
• "Biographical details" - some mention of BLP is needed, especially the concept of "pseudo-biographies", though the way it's introduced here could possibly be changed.
• Stuff that's missing: any guidance on both embedded lists and list articles. Guidance of this sort is largely missing from all of Wikipedia, so until that comes into being, lists should probably be explicitly excluded from this guidance (notwithstanding "trivia lists", for which there is existing guidance).

--Father Goose 00:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Pausing on my reply until Wizardman, our mediator, is caught up. —WikiLen 00:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

As to this point- we need some sort of "how to structure articles" overview. - and so tending to style matters - I already mentioned above that consideration of Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Principle of least astonishment was a Good idea. One specific sentence, quoted above, is particularly relevant to instruction on writing which relates one piece of minutia to the next. Not sure where it could fit on the projectpage, but a style guideline will have to *sync* in some way with other style guidelines, to some extent, I think. Will look at the other points if I get a chance, bit busy just now. Newbyguesses - Talk 00:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I seems that this should be rejected and then you should develop some support for the style guideline, but first see if the goal can be achived within another style guideline. I'm not sure I see this as pertinent to style so you may have a problem convincing others, but good luck. --Kevin Murray 01:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think thispage is still aiming at a content guideline, (and no, it hasnt been rejected). But some questions tending towards style considerations are being pursued currently by interested editors, or would be if the page was not under protection due to a dispute, or mediation, or whatever. Newbyguesses - Talk 02:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

If there are parts of it that are okay and parts of it that need changing, start addressing the parts of it that need changing. I believe much of what it says meets with no controversy, although there's still room for improvement. Would you care to single out the parts of it you disagree with?--Father Goose 03:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't specifically object to any portions. I don't see it as needed and it meets the criteria for rejection. --Kevin Murray 03:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Rejected status

Now that the page is unprotected, it seems appropriate to return the rejected tag. However, if we can come to a compromise as to a short term period to demonstrate dome progress and a measurable goal I'd support reopening the proposal. But if this falls back to a revert war, I'll consider this too project contentious to ever reach consensus. Your choice. --Kevin Murray 15:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The rejected tag is appropriate... more to say after Wizardman to gets caught up. —WikiLen 18:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Compromise right here. Start describing what changes you'd like to see. If we can start agreeing upon some things, we can implement them given that the page is now unlocked. I'm no longer party to the mediation, but if you genuinely want to start changing this into a style guideline from a content guideline, say something. Anything. Get it started.--Father Goose 20:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I find Kevin Murray's statement applies here: "I don't see it as needed and it meets the criteria for rejection." —WikiLen 02:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The decision of whether this is rejected is independent from what I or others think the verbiage should be. But notwithstanding the rejection of this project, I think we should be working on a broader guideline named WP:CONTENT, which covers this issue among others. However, I am skeptical as to the viability of any objective guideline. --Kevin Murray 02:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion of the status of this project is best discussed at the Mediation - just talking to oneself here just clutters up the talkpage with "verbiage". Newbyguesses - Talk 02:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• With FG no longer participating the mediation is a farce. --Kevin Murray 02:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep. And I am unhappy to see that the compromise that was in vogue for a tantalizing instant has evaporated. If it was a good idea, why did it become a bad idea again?--Father Goose 06:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I hate to see the efforts of someone with such good intentions go to waste because of people with such bad intentions. Kevin and Wikilen, I'm not sure if you've listened to yourselves recently, but you've been nothing but adversarial. You've created a fight out of thin air. I just don't see the need for this attitude. If FG's proposal is such a bad idea and has no chance of succeeding then just let him finish it so it can fail and die. I think that would accomplish your apparent goal of quelling him a lot more quickly than this constant hindering. Live and let die.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

06:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that this is a fair characterization of the process. The proponents have had ample time to pull this together and they have failed. The proposal process is not perennial; please read the policy page. The mediation has been a tissue of non sequitur complaints rather than a discussion of the mediation issue which is specifically about process as defined by FG. The underlying concern here is that no meaningful progress toward completion has been achieved; there is just a constant churning of verbiage and format without progress to the goal, and perpetual denial of the failure. However, without some parties trying to apply the standards, the proponent constantly claim consensus etc. --Kevin Murray 12:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to carry on an argument on two fronts with the same people in response to the same statement. If you want to respond to me, choose a place and do it. So the following is copied from my talk page:

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

15:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Copied text:

---

Relevance proposal

I think that it is important to compare the harm to be done to WP by a bloated rule system against the good intentions of well-meaning proponents. No individual rule-set will harm the project significantly, but we really face a problem as writers, that we will choke the project with contradictory and/or confusing policies, guidelines, essays. It's not about the one thing, it's about the accumulation (AKA Tragedy of the commons. Compromises have been offered, but blanketed by mountains of defensive rhetoric -- please look closely at the conversations. --Kevin Murray 12:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

But you said the guideline has no chance of succeeding. So who cares what the potential negative impact is?

Either it has no chance of developing a consensus, or it DOES have that chance and you don't want that to happen for fear of the harm it could cause. It's one or the other. You can't keep switching back and forth. If it has no chance, let it die. If it has a chance, then it should get a chance. Either way, it means you should not be continuing with your schoolyard bullying. You're either avoiding a possible consensus in favor of your personal opinion, or you're hindering the efforts of something completely harmless that's doomed to definite failure.

Feel free to clarify which of those describes your motivations.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

14:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur in theory, but in practice proponents for these type of pages eventually begin to claim consensus if there is no further objection, and claim that the longevity of their efforts validates the project. Please read NG's constant claim of consensus etc. And FG's claim that an absense of opposition (silence) means consent. Consider the policy statement: " A rejected page is any proposal for which consensus support is not present, regardless of whether there is active discussion or not. Consensus need not be fully opposed; if consensus is neutral on the issue and unlikely to improve, the proposal is likewise rejected. It is considered bad form to hide this fact, e.g. by removing the tag. Making small changes will not change this fact, nor will repetitive arguments. Generally it is wiser to rewrite a rejected proposal from scratch and start in a different direction." How am I showing "poor intentions" by trying to enforce the policy? I didn't come here with animosity toward the project or the proponents, just two concerns: (1) inexperience of the proponents, and (2) a resultant unnecessary proposal. --Kevin Murray 16:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

If anyone claims the longevity of efforts or an absence of opposition as consent, then they would simply be wrong, and you could deal with that when the time comes. There's no reason to predict that eventuality and furthermore to implement your own foretelling that no real consensus can be reached and you may as well work towards preventing a fake one from accumulating. That's just ridiculous. It's not a reason. Who are you to say that the only possible consensus would be a fake one? And so what if it is? Do you think a fake consensus would actually make it through to make a proposal into a guideline? Is that really your fear here?

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

16:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that we are getting anywhere with this. We seem to have different opinions, and maybe just need to respect those different opinions without implying poor conduct. I would ask you to comment on why the policy on rejection should not be enforced at this time. --Kevin Murray 16:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, I think we are getting somewhere, or at least we might, if you would answer the questions I very clearly asked just now. You can't expect answers from me if you ignore my questions.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

16:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Please consider my comments below. My answers to your questions are yes I do fear faked consensus, but not specifically from FG or NG. And yes I have seen editors twist consensus evaluations, but I'm not asserting that in this case. Who am I to evaluate consensus? I am a concerned editor/writer, who has seen poorly written and coordinated rule-sets abused on purpose and by misunderstanding. I've worked hard to simplify the guidelines and make them be more consistent and understandable. I hope this answers your questions. If you want to discuss my behavior, let's take it to my talk page and let the progress here continue undistracted by our differences of opinion. Beyond that I say cheers and please have a good day! --Kevin Murray 16:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You're basically saying your lack of faith in the evaluation of consensus causes you to implement your own personal brand of enforcement to ensure that the consensus evaluation never has to even commence. You're absolutely right about one thing: Who are you to evaluate consensus? If I'm to place my faith in one or the other, I would choose the proper evaluation process, rather than your foretelling. I think most would agree with me on that. It's not your job to protect Wikipedia from itself when where and how you see fit. You're supposed to let the process progress as originally intended; not hinder it, even though you see it as flawed or prone to misuse.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

17:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

If it won't succeed it should be done with quickly — not that this has been quick. Anything else is inefficient; a waste. —WikiLen 08:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

What gives?

Father Goose is not blocked, no one is stopping him from developing a Relevance concept. The only thing stopped is having the project carry some weight in edit disputes. As to giving him a chance... that was fully done. His original proposal was a "three questions" approach. We gave him a full court on that one. In the end he said, "Earlier this week, I was finally able to see that the 'three questions' were not going to be an effective approach." The "three questions" approach was his whole proposal. He got to carry that all the way to the end. Regarding your very reasonable appeal, "just let him finish it so it can fail and die" — didn't I do that? It is his having a second chance at a "Proposal" status that has been problematic. In my opinion, one can't claim a right to carry the "Proposal" tag indefinitely — a bad precedent. I hope you don't still think I was creating "a fight out of thin air"? —WikiLen 13:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, the above is my motivation — now to your point on "adversarial". I was at all times fully aware I was being "adversarial" — to answer your question "not sure if you've listened to yourselves." In discussions with FG I called my approach "brutal." It was a very conscious and necessary choice — IMHO. He responds well to ideas of content but not so well to ideas of context. Despite the adversarial stance we are not enemies — a fact we should celebrate. This struggle over moderation, though, is probably not done yet. Check out my Incremental approach suggestion. —WikiLen 13:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

So your "brutality", including your having been in favor of putting the proposal into a rejected or essay status, was merely a tool that you used to get FG to listen to your suggestions? I mean if I'm wrong then please correct me, as I must obviously be failing miserably to understand your explanation here. But even after two paragraphs of it I still don't see any excuse for your adversarial nature in this proposal, despite your very different polite demeanor here, which if you were hoping would prove something, it hasn't. I've been reading everything you've written on the relevancy talk page and it is for lack of a better term, shameful.

As for giving him a chance: His approach is different this time. Why not give him a second chance? People deserve second chances, don't they? Again, for the same reasons: If it's doomed to fail, let it fail, again. Where's the harm? If you're sick of looking at FG or his proposals then simply ignore the project -- let someone else argue with him. Its existence doesn't harm you in any way. Simply remove it from your watch list, and you won't have to hear about it anymore.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

14:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

---

(end of copied text)

As during mediation, I am very willing to reopen this proposal if there is some prearranged limit on how long it continues until it is fianlly evaluated. FG suggested 2 months to which I and WL agreed, but then came the litany of caveats and allegations. I'm still very open to seeing continued efforts, but with some expectation of completion. I'm skeptical but happy to give a chance, with some time boundary. --Kevin Murray 16:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Is that how proposed guidelines are supposed to be handled? Is there supposed to be a time limit for crafting a given proposal? Even if you were willing to give it two months, then that would mean you should back off from all the bullying for that time. If the agreement was two months then give him the two months; and that means either closing your mouth for that time or at least laying off the brutality in favor of constructive discussion -- neither of which I've seen yet.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

16:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of changes needed to the page

Following a number of minor edits, which were allowed now the page protection has been lifted, I would say that the proposal is in pretty good shape. Some additions could certainly be made, in response to particular criticism if such is forthcoming. However, the present state of the proposed guideline seems helpful and suitable. Newbyguesses - Talk 02:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you get an objective consensus on tha--Kevin Murray 02:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)t?

Do you have any specific criticisms, or any positive proposals? Newbyguesses - Talk 03:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

My specific criticism is that there is no broad based consensus for this proposal. Two editors are propelling a project to prescribe a rule set in contradiction to practice at WP. I do object to that. --Kevin Murray 12:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It is impossible to demonstrate a consensus while there's a fistfight in the meeting room. I don't suppose you'd be willing to lay off so we can demonstrate that consensus?--Father Goose 06:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no fistfight. There is an attempt to follow procedures in conflict with an attempt to artificially prolong a failed process. --Kevin Murray 12:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Incremental approach proposed

Context note: Seems that a general policy on how to measure relevance is, for the moment, not a good thing to develop. If I am wrong on this then the three concepts below become questionable. (WikiLen)

We have three worthy concepts here — concepts that call to be developed.

1. Trivia and related lists are having problems that might be solvable by imposition of a new policy (or whatever) from outside the Trivia struggle — a policy designed specifically for fixing the Trivia and related lists problem.
2. Advice to editors on understanding relevance could be very useful to Wikipedia at large (not to be confused with measuring relevance).
3. A general policy on how to measure relevance is not needed or would be a bad idea (i.e.: rule creep).

The perception that (2) and (3) above are in opposition to each other has gotten us into trouble — my take. Also, mixing (1) and (2) has gotten us in trouble — again, my take. I agree with (2) and (3) above. I question the wisdom of (1); the wisdom of shopping outside the Trivia struggle for a solution to Trivia. In general, I think FG has been much to ambitious. I propose an incremental approach, rather than an all-in-one approach. —WikiLen 11:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Proper progress and procedure being followed

I think that continued efforts by editors here is appropriate with the Rejected tag in place. I have no objection to editors continuing to work on the project and I hope that something can come of it. I think that we have gotten overly involved in evaluating past sins. I would support the removal of the rejected tag if there is a demonstration of real progress and/or added interest from new proponents. I would prefer to see the efforts shifted to a comprehensive content guideline, but that can be another day. Please accept my sincere appologies for heated arguments etc. I really feel that all involved here have the best interests of the project at heart, although we may choose different trails to the same goal. Good luck! --Kevin Murray 16:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

My basic goal is to allow this proposal to evolve without the constant suggestion that it can't or shouldn't be done. If that's been accomplished them I'm mostly satisfied, although I don't see why this couldn't be put back into a proposed status rather than rejected. All those "heated arguments" and "past sins" meant that this attempt was never given a real chance. It will be harder to get editors interested in a rejected guideline. The rejected tag should be removed. Let it be worked on properly, in its proposed state, without the hindrance of naysayers, and then it can be submitted for acceptance or rejection -- as the scenario should have gone from the beginning. Putting it back into a proposed state does not harm anyone.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

17:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I see your point and want to cooperate. Can we reach an agreement that we remove the rejected tag and replace the proposal tag for two months, then try to objectively determine the status at that point? I would support that, and during that period I will only participate if anyone attempts to claim consensus for adoption and I don't agree. --Kevin Murray 17:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That sounds ok to me. Let's see what FG thinks.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

18:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a very welcome offer. I do not get the sense that WikiLen is prepared to offer it as well, though.--Father Goose 04:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Responding to Equazcion's "My basic goal is..." points: - (WikiLen)

• "does not harm anyone" — I don't understand this. Don't "Proposals" have some weight in edit disputes? Kind of a beta version for a guideline? —WikiLen 21:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• "allow this proposal to evolve" — And I don't understand this. Put it at a user subpage if you have to.
• "don't see why this couldn't be put back into a proposed status rather than rejected" — Because it meets the criteria for "Rejected."
• "It will be harder to get editors interested in a rejected guideline" — True, but parties should have thought of that before putting the "Proposal" tag on it. One can't put a "Proposal" tag on something and then say woops sorry, I didn't really mean it. "Proposal" comes with risks of "Rejection."
• "Let it be worked on properly, in its proposed state, without the hindrance of naysayers" — My take: Our adversarial context is due to the unresolved tension between the concepts of is-needed and is-not-needed. All of us who have been working on this for awhile realize one of these two concepts will end up occupying the Relevance space. Trying to work on either concept in this unresolved context brings unavoidable hassles.

Wikipedia wisdom advises against competing forks. —WikiLen 21:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

No, proposals don't have any weight in edit disputes. If a proposal hasn't been accepted yet then there are no grounds for it carrying any weight. This isn't like beta software that's usable even before it's finished. A guideline is a serious matter and can't be cited until properly accepted. If someone cited a proposed guideline in an argument with me, I could just write my own guideline proposal contradicting theirs.

Most of the rest of your points can be answered via the {{proposed}} template wording (which reinforces my first counterpoint above):

The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption (which is not determined by counting votes). References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy".

Meaning that:

• A project tagged as a proposal is not necessarily ready for acceptance or rejection. A project can be tagged as a proposal even though it is still in development.
• A project tagged as a proposal is not necessarily ready for a consensus evaluation. It can still be in the process of attaining a consensus.
• A project tagged as a proposal should not be cited as policy, meaning that it shouldn't carry any weight in talk page discussions.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

22:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Useful feedback, thanks, especially regarding the use of Proposals in edit disputes...

The "Proposal" tag competes with the "Rejected" tag which states, "A rejected proposal is any for which consensus to support is not present and seems unlikely to form, regardless of whether there is active discussion or not." The rejected criteria wins out in this case since an actual consensus for rejection was established, as defined by Wikipedia. The consensus was established above at Proposal rejected. You were the only one who objected to the claim "Proposal rejected" and it was a very limited objection at that. The absence of objections did not mean an absence of consensus. To quote the Consensus policy, "Silence equals consent." —WikiLen 23:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind people working on this and it is a worthy project. However, since this is a rejected proposal many people who care about the issue are sitting the discussion out rather than participating. There is no need to spend the time and it may be futile if the proposal isn't resurrected. Therefore, emphatically, silence may have meant consent when the proposal was active but do not take silence for consent on something that isn't up for discussion. If and when this is ready, raise the issue again using whatever procedure and we'll talk about it then. Tks and good luck, Wikidemo 23:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll let you in on a little secret: I'm not even terribly fond of the idea of this guideline. Yes, in fact I'm with you -- I think it is too broad a concept to wrap a guideline around. But I did what people normally should do in that situation -- give constructive criticism, allow it to proceed, and wait until its proponents are satisfied with its wording before passing judgment or demanding that it be evaluated for consensus, acceptance, or rejection. That's how the process is meant to work. I don't jump the gun and attack people when they're doing something I don't agree with, bothering them and hindering their efforts, because in all likelihood the processes built into Wikipedia will not allow a bad guideline to pass into acceptance -- and when the time comes, I will have a say in that process.

Someone once said something like, "While I disagree with what you say, I'll defend to the death your right to say it." Well that's what I do. Let people say what they will, because as long as all they're doing is talking, they aren't harming anyone. When they start saying that their words are ready to become a guideline for others, that's when to speak up.

The purpose of this particular discussion was not to discuss the past. As Kevin says, we have gotten overly involved in evaluating past sins. And as I illustrated above, this proposal was never given its due chance. From the moment it began, it was overwrought with constant non-constructive badgering. It was hindered, before it even got out of the gate. I believe this was a mistake and I'd like to help correct it. If it will fail, then its failure will be much less disputed if it fails via the correct process, followed uninhibited.

The rejected tag being removed, and a significant time period allowed for revision and consensus-building, without the meddling of people claiming that it can't or shouldn't be done, would give this proposal its proper chance. I further suggest that even if you still disagree with me, humor me anyway. Help put this matter to rest. It can't harm you in any way.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

23:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

These points remain unanswered

1. A consensus was established for "Rejected" above at Proposal rejected. The absence of objections did not mean an absence of consensus. To quote the Consensus policy, "Silence equals consent." Of course a new proposal (substantially revised) can be submitted. The place for submitting that new proposal could be this space — but the tag would stay rejected until the new one is ready. Alternately, a user subpage could be used for developing the new proposal.
2. "allow this proposal to evolve" — Go to it. Put it at a user subpage if you have to.
3. "don't see why this couldn't be put back into a proposed status rather than rejected" — Because it meets the criteria for "Rejected."
4. "It will be harder to get editors interested in a rejected guideline" — True, but parties should have thought of that before putting the "Proposal" tag on it. One can't put a "Proposal" tag on something and then say woops sorry, I didn't really mean it. "Proposal" comes with risks of "Rejection."
5. "Let it be worked on properly, in its proposed state, without the hindrance of naysayers" — My take: Our adversarial context is due to the unresolved tension between the concepts of is-needed and is-not-needed. All of us who have been working on this for awhile realize one of these two concepts will end up occupying the Relevance space. Trying to work on either concept in this unresolved context brings unavoidable hassles.

The root of the adversarial stance we have is that two forks (conceptually) exist. The two forks is the Pink elephant in the room. We have to get a consensus on which concept to go with. The new people to this discussion don't know, but this proposal has already had its first chance. FG's original proposal was a "three questions" approach. We gave him (as the moderator) a full court on that one. In the end he said, "Earlier this week, I was finally able to see that the 'three questions' were not going to be an effective approach." The struggle is over his second chance. I say it is time to end the conceptual fork. —WikiLen 00:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Shall I paste my response down here as well, or were you planning on responding to anything I said?

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

00:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok.

1. I'm suggesting that the rejection be repealed due to the proposal having not been allowed to be properly worked on.
2. The proposal would evolve easier if it had the respect of an actual proposed guideline in the wp: namespace. More editors would get involved.
3. It meets the criteria for rejected because the consensus was based on a proposal that was never given a chance to be worked on properly.
4. Again, according to the proposed template wording, a proposal is not necessarily ready for submittal for rejection or acceptance. It can have the proposed tag and still be in development, which this was at the time.
5. Your adversarial nature is and was uncalled for. If you've got unresolved tension then I suggest you find a way to control yourself and act like a mature adult rather than a schoolyard bully.

And in the interest of doing so, recognize that allowing this a second chance would, again, not harm you in any way. Simply ignore it until such time as its proponents deem it ready for consideration. Take it off your watch list. We're all adults here (I think). Try to keep an open mind.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

01:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Replying using the same numbering:

1. A repeal is a viable option and I encourage you to pursue this. (I may do an RfC myself.) From the Consensus policy:

   An editor who thinks there are good reasons to believe a consensual decision is outdated may discuss it on the relevant talk page, through a Request for Comment...

   Clearly, you have plausable grounds for making an appeal.
2. Doesn't seem right to remove a "Rejected" tag for the sole purpose of getting more editors involved.
3. Yes I see your point, hence your inspiration to appeal.
4. Doesn't a consensus trump any rule, including WP:IAR?
5. There is a misunderstanding. The adversarial context comes from the difficulty of resolving the conflict between the two approaches to Relevance (two forks): (1) policy is not needed and (2) a policy is needed. Only one of these two approaches to Relevance can occupy the project space. There is no possibility of compromise between approaches that are diametrically opposed to each other. This two-side structure is unavoidable and naturally leads to an adversarial system for determining which of the two sides becomes the chosen consensus. Your job, as I see it, is to make the best case you can for Relevance as a policy and mine is to make the best case that a policy is not needed. You bring out the weaknesses my case and I do the same for yours.

By the way, I like these replies. They don't duck from the real issues (request the rudeness stop — see #5). WikiLen 08:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)- I am continuing to edit the proposed guideline. I am hoping that when the Mediation concludes, we will have settled the question of whether the proposal was rejected, or if it was disrupted, causing work to be wasted. But, at this time, I will not, myself, be removing the rejected tag, which I believe was re-added at the first opportunity after the page-protect came off, against consensus.

And I see from this talk-page that editors, today and yesterday, who would like to work on the RELproposal are being dissauded because of this sneaky, and improper tag. Still, at this time, i am not removing it myself, though the Mediation currently shows no signs of progress towards a satisfactory conclusion, or even any conclusion at all, after 15 wasted days. Newbyguesses - Talk 08:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• It might be a good time for WL and NG to take a break with the long responses and historic rivalry and let the rest of us pound out a compromise. It looks like FG and I are coming close along with EQZ. I could see the tag coming off today. As far as editing with the tag on, I don't see a problem with that. --Kevin Murray 13:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as FG and I are concerned, we've both already agreed to your (Kevin's) terms above. I'll outline them here for clarification.

Allow 2 months for the project to be worked on, during which time:

• Rejection tag stays off
• Proposal tag stays on
• No non-constructive arguments, or comments suggesting that work on the proposal should discontinue, for any reason (including lack of consensus).
• Discussion of consensus can continue after the two-month period, when a fresh and objective look at the proposal will determine its merit as a guideline -- without bringing up past events.
• Discussion of consensus can also continue before that time, but only in the event that the proponents claim to have established a consensus, in an effort to turn the proposal into a guideline.

FG and I have already agreed to this. If everyone else involved agrees too, then let's do it.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

15:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that your outline represents my position, and the spirit of the compromise we almost had at MedCAb. If we interpret that FG has agreed then I say pull the rejected tag. While I respect WL's right to disagree, he would reamin the only person in stated opposition of removing the tag. I'm not sure that NG agrees to the compromise, but surely won't object to the tag being gone. I'll be gone for the rest of the day so I have no objection to EQZ or FG removing the tag if we have consensus in their eyes. Good luck! --Kevin Murray 15:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Kevin for your help and willingness to compromise. I'm going to go ahead and remove the rejected tag and replace the proposed tag. I'll also be archiving most of this talk page so that we can start over without all of these lengthy arguments bogging us down. I'll leave the terms of the compromise up though, as a reminder. Good luck to everyone.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

16:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Terms of this proposal

The following outlines a compromise reached in order to allow for a second attempt at this relevance proposal:

Allow 2 months (a period that ends on October 31st) for the project to be worked on, during which time:

• Rejection tag stays off
• Proposal tag stays on
• No non-constructive arguments, or comments suggesting that work on the proposal should discontinue, for any reason (including lack of consensus).
• Discussion of consensus can continue after the two-month period, when a fresh and objective look at the proposal will determine its merit as a guideline -- without bringing up past events.
• Discussion of consensus can also continue before that time, but only in the event that the proponents claim to have established a consensus, in an effort to turn the proposal into a guideline.

FG and I have already agreed to this. If everyone else involved agrees too, then let's do it.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

15:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that your outline represents my position, and the spirit of the compromise we almost had at MedCAb. If we interpret that FG has agreed then I say pull the rejected tag. While I respect WL's right to disagree, he would reamin the only person in stated opposition of removing the tag. I'm not sure that NG agrees to the compromise, but surely won't object to the tag being gone. I'll be gone for the rest of the day so I have no objection to EQZ or FG removing the tag if we have consensus in their eyes. Good luck! --Kevin Murray 15:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Kevin for your help and willingness to compromise. I'm going to go ahead and remove the rejected tag and replace the proposed tag. I'll also be archiving most of this talk page so that we can start over without all of these lengthy arguments bogging us down. I'll leave the terms of the compromise up though, as a reminder. Good luck to everyone.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

16:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I am on board. This is a good plan. —WikiLen 16:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll support this as well, better than what I was coming up with. Wizardman 17:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Having just seen this proposal for the first time (I just woke up), this seems good to me. I hope that work can now resume, and the Mediation conclude. Newbyguesses - Talk 21:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Best luck to you all. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 01:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

First order of business

Can we put the {{dablink}} back at the top of Wikipedia:Relevance pointing to this page, and a dablink pointing back, and have WP:REL point here again? All the Special:Whatlinkshere/WP:REL links on Wikipedia specifically refer to the proposal, not the umbrella version. I'm okay with WP:RELEVANCE continuing to point at Wikipedia:Relevance.--Father Goose 20:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Damn, that's a lot of links in that paragraph.--Father Goose 20:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

There was already a link there, further down the page, but I replaced it with the proper dablink at the top. I don't see there being any objections to this.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

20:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Also changed WP:REL to point back here. If all the links refer to this proposal anyway, there shouldn't be any objections to that either.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

20:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll add the dablink to this page and update the shortcut boxes on both pages. The shortcuts were briefly warred over along with the proposal, and I hope they are also no longer an issue.--Father Goose

I've also added this to the "active proposals" section of the {{IncGuide}} template.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

21:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)