Wikipedia talk:Relevance/Archive 2

message: I apologize that the rewrite has been taking so long.  Rounding out the proposal has, not surprisingly, taken a fair amount of work.  I have made good progress this week, though, and I'd like to offer a preview of the work at User:Father Goose/Relevance.  Keep in mind that that this draft is still incomplete and that the text may yet change substantially, but feel free to leave comments.--Father Goose 03:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance 2.0 

message: I used the WTC example because although the Trade Towers are very culturally significant (especially post-9/11) -- within New York, they were visually almost as significant as the sky.  An outrageous number of movies set in NYC from 1971 to 2001 included at least one shot of the Towers.  So if every shot of the Towers qualifies, the article would verge on being "List of films and TV shows with at least one scene set in New York City", and without at least some selectivity, the article could easily run afoul of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and get deleted.
:But if readers want the list the list serves the interest of readers, it belongs in Wikipedia—as an exception of What Wikipedia is not—and as a long list it should probably be split off into a separate article such as, "List of films and TV shows showing the Trade Towers". —WikiLen 02:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, isn't this is already addressed by, What Wikipedia is not? —WikiLen 02:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WTC in popular culture 

message: This draft was a pleasure to read. REL 2.0 is an admirable effort, worthy of its chance to be considered for promotion to guideline/policy status, though of course its a dream, a longshot, but better, much than a snowball in the hot sun. 
The brief duologue on this talkpage between WikiLen and Father Goose 19/20 June (On policy versus guidelines) was eerily prescient; much that was anticipated in that discussion has eventuated.
Working together, a two-pronged effort, is a supple approach, giving latitude not for Forking, but balancing (of style that is: all points implicating actual policy need to be unambiguous, and consistent across the board – it seems REL 2.0 actually achieves that!).
The rename of ATSIA to ATS also in a way maybe clears the way for WP:REL to address just those issues that it currently does, comprehensively and comprehendably, giving guidance in a general way, which is yet anchored to occasional specifics, and without bogging down in detail. So, at long last, (ahem) this interested editor feels called upon to offer congratulations to Father Goose for exemplary persistence, and fine work, a fine draft, and also WikiLen for many valuable contributions. There is much still to do: for now though, both editors, well done! Newbyguesses - Talk 23:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much.--Father Goose 08:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rel 2.0

message: I don't understand this, from the "Relevance of biographical details" section:
:Biographical articles are often not about people, but about what brought those people to the public's attention. In this regard, there may be information that is pertinent to individuals, but not to what makes them of interest.
Especially the phrase, "there may be information that is pertinent to individuals, but not to what makes them of interest." —WikiLen 17:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I had in mind there was basically any personal information that has not been widely reported or otherwise written about (such as biographies) -- i.e., where the individuals in question were not public figures.  I'd rather express it in the form of a principle than via the criteron of "not widely reported" or bring in legal definitions (public figure).  Every rephrase I've tried of that sentence has drifted into incorrect specifics, however, so I'd recommend just removing it.--Father Goose 19:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subtopic: Relevance of biographical details 

message: Biographical articles are often both about the person and the impact they have on society, including spin-offs of their work. 
* The person: The depth and amount of reliable biographical coverage the person has received is a good indication of what biographical details Wikipedia should include on that individual.
* Impact on society: The impact on society can be more about society or its own thing than about the person, however it is acceptable to describe that impact, in summary fashion, in the biography. Detailed descriptions of notable spin-offs/impacts should have their own article with a link to that article. 
Important: Wikipedia articles that contain material about living people can affect their lives and the lives of their families, colleagues, and friends. Biographical material must therefore be written with sensitivity and a strict adherence to our content policies, and the subjects of our articles must be approached impartially and conscientiously. Editing of articles on biographical subjects has an official policy — listed above. Please refer to it.
----
Above: —WikiLen 03:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biographical articles 

message: Tomorrow, I will be replacing the content of the current "project page" with the content at User:WikiLen/Relevance. The new content is a refactoring of the current page as well as a synthesis of ideas between myself (WikiLen), User:Father Goose and User:Coppertwig. This is not yet a consensus but is a agreed upon process between myself and Father Goose. This is the second big step. The first was the posting of a "completely revised draft" by Father Goose on 13:47, 6 July 2007. All edits to date, of the current version have been considered or incorporated into this second major draft. —WikiLen 17:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Third big step!  2.0 and your draft grew from the seed of 1.0.  I've been watching your draft unfold and have been storing up my responses, to avoid commenting on material that was still changing.  Anyhow, I'm happy to hear the next stage is at hand.  Talk to you tomorrow.--Father Goose 21:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Incidentally, if it's not quite ready tomorrow, don't worry about taking more time.  In fact, I'd recommend letting it sit for 24 hours after you think it's done so you can re-read it with fresh eyes.  Transfer it over whenever you're satisfied.--Father Goose 06:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or now, now's good too.  Heh.--Father Goose 07:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, posted (I was ready). Sobering thing to completely replace an article... ready for the next phase. —WikiLen 07:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Revert!  Muhahaha.  But seriously, the next couple of days are a little busy for me.  I'll present my critique when time permits.--Father Goose 08:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like your sense of humor... gave me a good laugh. —WikiLen 11:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second completely revised draft 

message: This is for version 2.1, by request. With this I wish to retire from reviewing WP:RELEVANCE proposals.
Neither proposal shows much potential for becoming a useful guideline. I don't see an existing problem that either of these proposals could solve. (Space-filler for wikilinks to WP:RELEVANCE should be fixed by more appropriate linking.)
My suggestion, should the (two, competing) editors wish to continue developing their essays, is to request deletion of Wikipedia:Relevance so that editors are not referred to either guideline. This way references to WP:RELEVANCE will be redlinked, and  then redirected individually.
As userspace subpages, these articles can be developed individually either with the goal of later being sufficiently useful to be proposed, or simply to be kept as personal essays.
No more apologies from me. / edg ☺ ★ 04:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Relevance/Review B|Review B]] 

message: My vision (WikiLen) on what to convey: Relevancy is obvious! 
* In the vast majority of cases relevancy is simple to discern — no need for a policy to address the obvious, except to say "don't lose site of the fact relevancy is basically obvious." 
* It is our attempt to understand relevancy that is complicated. Hence, dampen the attempt; amplify the simplicity.
Edg, you strike hard several times in your Review A on the point "sheds no light on anything not already obvious." That relevancy is obvious is the whole point — a point I have failed to get across to you.  —WikiLen 00:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then is this your summary?Content should be about the subject of the article.If that really covers the whole thing, we have a nutshell. However, the article would need to develop a case for it — does this rule by itself lead us to good decisions about relevance? / edg ☺ ★ 01:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I like your suggestion for the nutshell statement. Yes, I think this leads to good decisions by editors. First, Wikipedia has thrived from its start with no policy or guideline on relevancy. That speaks volumes. I have seen the comment, in an Edit summary, "not about the topic of the article" work many times, especially when I point out where the information would belong (or put it there myself). Second, it is the edges that needs help, such as when people think indirectly relevant means directly relevant.  —WikiLen 03:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I have found it difficult to convey this approach of leave the center alone, just deal with the boundaries. I guess it comes to this: Editors do not need to be told what is relevant they just need to be told how to not get confused over this; how to win over other editors who use bogus arguments for relevancy. And, of course, how to avoid using bogus arguments oneself. —WikiLen 03:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vision: Imagining something not easily put into words 

message: All right, version "2.1" is now posted at User:Father_Goose/Relevance.  It incorporates several changes suggested by WikiLen, Newbyguesses, and edgarde, and a few more of my own.  Edgarde, don't feel compelled to review it right away; if you manage to find time for it anytime in the next week, that would be just great.
I acknowledge that there are still several areas where it could be improved; the "Impact" subsection is more spare than I'd like, and perhaps some of the preamble material could be relocated to below "Establishing relevance", which is the meat of the thing.  I also haven't yet tried to soften it in the ways I believe WikiLen would prefer -- although I was careful not to state anything in too absolutist a manner; guidelines should guide, not imprison.--Father Goose 09:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance 2.1