Wikipedia talk:Relevance/Archive 1

message: This is a (summary) of the examples provided currently on the projectpage, which ought to be preserved, (imho) here on the talkpage as well. They have served already as valuable stalking horses in the trivia hunt and could easily do so again, as discussion points. 
Internet
Jet
Tom Cruise/Bugatti Veyron
John Bull
left-handedness
Belguim
Margaret Thatcher/crystallographer
Tommy Lee Jones/Harvard
Curb Your Enthusiasm
Bohemian Rhapsody/Queen
L.H.O.O.Q/Mona Lisa
Examples on the projectpage are exposed to the danger of becoming irrelevant over time through losing topicality; examples that are studied and considerered and merits discussed can, as I say, serve as valuable stalking-horses, and these have been very thoughtfully selected. — Newbyguesses - Talk 00:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: examples (summary)

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

message: I've been reading the crticisms from the last several days, and I actually agree with most of them.  I've been working on a revised draft to address them, although I've been busy this weekend, so it'll take a few more days.  I'll summarize the criticisms I've seen so far which I agree with:
* Needs to be more concise
* Examples are too topical/anthropocentric and should possibly be separated from statements of principle
* Relevance in comparison to length ("balance") should be addressed
* At least one major criterion for relevance has been overlooked
--Father Goose 04:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: so far what's emerging is more coverage of "general principles", which was not mentioned in any critque yet, but it was admittedly lacking.--Father Goose 09:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ongoing work 

message: It may be a good idea to merge the ideas here with the already existent guidelines about trivia (WP:AVTRIV in particular). Trivia is by definition those bits that aren't "relevant", so the two are substantially overlapping. >Radiant< 12:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's a good idea. AVTRIVIA is a style guideline about trivia sections, and at this time says one thing — Avoid organizing articles as lists of isolated facts regarding the topic — and explains how to handle such when it occurs. It's not a good place to begin defining either trivia or relevance. Perhaps the redirect from WP:TRIVIA (which probably led to the creation of this article) should be pointed to a future version of this article. / edgarde 17:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At the very least, we'll have to see what ends up on this page.  Its content and even purpose is in flux, but as it matures it'll become clearer if it has any redundancy with WP:AVTRIV.--Father Goose 21:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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

text: *You'll find that it's far easier to amend an existing guideline than to start a new one. At any rate the talk page is big enough to discuss several things at once. >Radiant< 08:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All right, I'll leave the tag in place, but here's the ideal place to talk about relevance, and I'd like to see what kind of consensus (if any) emerges on the subject before trying to shunt it onto a different page.--Father Goose 08:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: * If the premise is flawed, there is no need, and the support is weak, no amount of time will justify acceptance.  Proposals sometime linger and then confuse people.  --Kevin Murray 13:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds like you're pronouncing it dead already.  The work's only begun.--Father Goose 17:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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