Wikipedia talk:Relevance of content/Archive 1

message: :*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)
replies: text: "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)

message: 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)
thread_title:  Examples (re Ford) 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: one at a time

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Good idea 

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

text: * 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)

text: *Could we just make it a redirect to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not? Simplicity. / edg ☺ ★ 04:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * 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)

text: *I think this is the decent burial we have been looking for. —WikiLen 11:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rejection assessed in summary 

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

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Okay, back to basics 

message: 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)
replies: text: Can you get an objective consensus on tha--Kevin Murray 02:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any specific criticisms, or any positive proposals? Newbyguesses - Talk 03:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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. 
# 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. 
# Advice to editors on understanding relevance could be very useful to Wikipedia at large (not to be confused with measuring relevance). 
# 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)
thread_title: Discussion of changes needed to the page

message: :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. 
# 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. 
# Advice to editors on understanding relevance could be very useful to Wikipedia at large (not to be confused with measuring relevance). 
# 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)
thread_title:  Incremental approach proposed