Wikipedia talk:Relevance of content

message: I am still thinking about this proposal, which I came across in active proposals. Those interested in discussing this topic, may also be interested in the recent discussion regarding requiring relevance as a measure of reliable sources (Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Crucial aspects of reliability).  Cheers!  Vassyana 18:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is indeed a related idea, although in terms of how they affect Wikipedia, I'd say they're not related.  Your proposal suggests that a book on breast cancer is not a good source (or at least not the best source) for information on heart attacks.  Our proposal suggests that information on breast cancer does not belong in the heart attack article.  This would be true even if that information came from a book on heart attacks -- but that probably doesn't have to be explicitly pointed out.  On the other hand, information that details a correlation between heart attacks and breast cancer would probably be appropriate to either of those articles.  And, relating it back to your idea, a book about either subject would be a good source for information on that correlation.--Father Goose 19:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. I didn't think they were overlapping. One addresses the idea in relation to reliable sourcing and the other in relation to notability. I saw this proposal and thought they were complementary, as you detailed. Vassyana 19:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related idea 

message: I'd like to draw attention to related discussion at WT:NPOV concerning e.g. WP:NPOV's shortcoming of failing to distinguish between ideological and systemic bias (or "narrative bias and selective bias"). An example would be pictures in biographies, where pictures of the person as a child or as an old person may be more readily available, but would give sort of undue weight to the article, since most people remember that person when they were middle-aged and at the peak of their popularity. Thought it may be of interest for users working on this proposal. —AldeBaer 14:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  related discussion at WT:NPOV 

message: This article has been in serious dispute over whether it's status should be "Rejected" or "Proposal." Through Mediation and painful work on everyone's part a compromise was reached. That compromise listed these terms: - (WikiLen)
Terms for the compromise:
</br>
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.
The two-month period has passed and I look forward to participating again in the work to find a consensus (I chose to stay out of the discussions for the two-month period). I was of the party that argued a "rejected" status had been achieved. —WikiLen 00:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Background note

message: The relevance topic is forked into two projects: Relevance and Relevance of content. I suggest the Relevance project it take on a fuller expression of its current spirit. Right now is just says what "Relevance" isn't rather than what it is. I am referring to this line:
At times just because information is true and citable does not necessarily mean it meets the threshold for notability within a given article.
I suspect listing other instances of false claims of relevance would be very useful to editors working with new users. See Relevance talk, "Umbrella - more on false claims of Relevance" for details on my suggestion. —WikiLen 00:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should avoid the word "notability" as it applies to whether content should appear in an article.  As we all know, notability is used as a threshold question for whether a subject is worth having an article about.  Once that is passed, material mentioned in the article has to be encyclopedic, sourced, verifiable, avoid various evils like copyright violation and POV bias, and relevant to the subject; it does not have to be independently notable.  This is already too often misunderstood, and I don't want to further any confusion by starting to use the word "notability" for these other purposes.  We should probably stick to "relevance."  Wikidemo 18:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: False claims of Relevance suggestion

message: I believe this is an extremely important style guide. I want to make a few points, just so I'm sure I understand what is being covered:
*This guide should be designed help people to pass the third good article criteria: "3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it: (a) addresses the major aspects of the topic; and (b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details." This says it pretty well, and maybe it should be quoted here.
*Choosing to emphasize some points over others is a form of original research, and must be discouraged.
*Relevance can be established through sources. I imagine that this would only be needed if the relevance of a section is in dispute. To be specific, this guideline could specify that:
:A paragraph or section should have at least one source that establishes its relevance. This source should be:
:#reliable
:#On the same subject as the article.
:#Cover the subject of the section directly.
:A paragraph can and should have other sources as well. However, these sources can't establish relevance if:
:#They are written about a related, but different, subject
:#They are a primary source about an aspect of the topic (e.g. an academic paper that is not, itself, a survey).
:#Promote a particular point of view of a subject (i.e. they don't claim to be objective).
:For example, any section in an article about artificial intelligence should have at least one source that is from a standard academic textbook on AI, or a popular introduction to the subject of AI. Other sources from related subjects (such as science fiction or machine learning) can also appear, as well sources written by a particular researcher or that promote a particular school of research. However, these other sources can't establish relevance.
I'm saying, in a nutshell, that relevance is connected to existing policies and guidelines, such as WP:GACR, WP:OR, WP:PSTS, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, but is not strictly covered by them. Relevance is an important (and simple) principle in its own right, and should also have the status of guideline. The guideline should emphasize these connections.
Finally, I want to note that, in the areas I have been working, relevance is a serious problem. I am constantly coming across paragraphs that appear to be written by editors who have only a passing familiarity with the subject. My impression is that these editors have read a book about a related subject, or work in a related field, and have written whole sections that emphasize some peripheral aspect or unusual perspective. These sections, in many cases, are well written and even have reliable sources, so I'm reluctant to just delete them. (In other cases, they are sheer speculation or the worst kind of b., of course. I don't feel as bad about deleting these.) Having a clear style guide will help. ---- CharlesGillingham 21:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WP needs this guide: a few thoughts

message: Only summarizes information that is elsewhere.  Seems to be restating WP:TOPIC#Stay_on_topic and violating the spirit of WP:NNC even though it won't be a notability guideline.  I fear it will be used to keep articles artificially small rather than to let them grow and adapt to new information. —davidh.oz.au 09:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I share your fear.  There is a benefit to keeping articles below a certain size, but not if the end result is discarded content.  As I noted below, current deletion policies tend to result in a lot of discarded content when articles are split.  All of that will have to be fixed before a guideline on the issue of "relevance" will not do harm.--Father Goose (talk) 05:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not really useful 

message: Although in the long term I think Wikipedia should and will have a guideline on the subject of relevance, for now I am declaring this proposal inactive.  I may return to it at some point, but the primary idea it promotes is moving material of questionable relevance into articles where it would have greater relevance.  This is an entirely sensible approach; unfortunately, any article subjectively deemed "non-notable" tends to get deleted, regardless of whether it meets the terms of Wikipedia:Notability.  Due to this, the end result of this proposal would be the permanent deletion of large swaths of content.  
If Wikipedia's deletion policy and procedures are eventually corrected, I would be happy to champion this proposal once again.--Father Goose (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that characterization is inaccurate, but not worth fighting over.  Should the proposal be restarted, what label is used in the interim will be moot.--Father Goose (talk) 03:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dormant, aka inactive 

message: It seems a bit harsh to condemn this article as 'rejected'.  What not just shift it to an 'essay' status?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Salty, that was a common practice for a while, but some people objected to the increasing proliferation of essays.  There was a discussion a few months back at the Policy and guideline policy page, where the determination was that these should not end up as essays; however, there is nothing that limits you from starting an essay based on this language.  It should have a different name.  You might be able to develop consensus for redirecting the short cuts there.  I think that an essay discussing the reasons for keeping articles on track would be great.  All that said, if you want to change this to an essay, I wouldn't object. --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the 'rejected' tag? 

message: I believe that marking this as an essay is a good move. --Kevin Murray 17:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Essay status

message: Please comment at Wikipedia talk:Handling trivia#Proposal to develop a content guideline on encyclopedic relevance.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to develop a content guideline on encyclopedic relevance