Wikipedia talk:Relevance emerges/Archive 1

message: == Explanations for my changes ==
I'll do what I can to explain the changes I made here:
* Moved the disambiguation heading to the top; this is standard format (for instance, see WP:DR)
* Removed ; this isn't a policy; no other guidelines include it.
* Typically... Often... To be relevant... -- these three sentences all say more or less the same thing, so I folded them into one sentence.  If something is obvious, there's no need to say it's obvious.
* I removed the footnote, which was a mini-editorial.  Either say it in the body of the guideline or don't say it at all.
* Don't break up your thoughts by using bullets.  Bullets should be used for discrete "items", not sentences that could be prose instead.
* There's a problem with "content duplicates content"; if the content is duplicated, it's already there, no point to moving it.  That error in wording was mine, from REL2; I fixed it, at any rate.
* I removed all the intra-page links and shortcuts.  Should any part of the guideline be read in isolation?  It's not a collection of discrete rules like WP:NOT.
* Don't use a numbered list unless you're laying out sequential steps.
* emergence of relevant content... Relevant content emerges... -- redundant.  I removed the second one.
* "not by application of policy or reliable sources," -- how necessary is it to say this?
* (serve the readers) -- unless you explain how to serve readers' needs, there's no point to invoking them, especially not as a parenthetical in a section heading.
* "balanced against notability" -- What's notability got to do with this?
* The three bullet points that follow should be turned into prose.
* I changed the two links to your essays from  into ; you shouldn't cite essays as the "main articles" for material in a guideline.  In fact, I'm not sure you should cite them in the guideline at all, even though they represent your views on the issue.
* You link to WP:NOTABILITY twice in proximity; I removed the second link and, separately, sharpened the sentence in which it appeared.
* That footnote doesn't explain anything.  Even less so as a footnote.
* I tried to tighten up the wording of the bullet points... which are not necessary anyway.
* I removed the one that outright contradicts WP:TRIVIA.  If you're trying to change or revoke that guideline, do it there.
Anyhow, that's my review-cum-edit of REL4.  I hope you can make use of some of it.--Father Goose 20:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fantastic, a version REL4.1 —WikiLen 08:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Originally at: User talk:Wiki Len/Relevance 

message: I'll do what I can to explain the changes I made here:
* Moved the disambiguation heading to the top; this is standard format (for instance, see WP:DR)
* Removed ; this isn't a policy; no other guidelines include it.
* Typically... Often... To be relevant... -- these three sentences all say more or less the same thing, so I folded them into one sentence.  If something is obvious, there's no need to say it's obvious.
* I removed the footnote, which was a mini-editorial.  Either say it in the body of the guideline or don't say it at all.
* Don't break up your thoughts by using bullets.  Bullets should be used for discrete "items", not sentences that could be prose instead.
* There's a problem with "content duplicates content"; if the content is duplicated, it's already there, no point to moving it.  That error in wording was mine, from REL2; I fixed it, at any rate.
* I removed all the intra-page links and shortcuts.  Should any part of the guideline be read in isolation?  It's not a collection of discrete rules like WP:NOT.
* Don't use a numbered list unless you're laying out sequential steps.
* emergence of relevant content... Relevant content emerges... -- redundant.  I removed the second one.
* "not by application of policy or reliable sources," -- how necessary is it to say this?
* (serve the readers) -- unless you explain how to serve readers' needs, there's no point to invoking them, especially not as a parenthetical in a section heading.
* "balanced against notability" -- What's notability got to do with this?
* The three bullet points that follow should be turned into prose.
* I changed the two links to your essays from  into ; you shouldn't cite essays as the "main articles" for material in a guideline.  In fact, I'm not sure you should cite them in the guideline at all, even though they represent your views on the issue.
* You link to WP:NOTABILITY twice in proximity; I removed the second link and, separately, sharpened the sentence in which it appeared.
* That footnote doesn't explain anything.  Even less so as a footnote.
* I tried to tighten up the wording of the bullet points... which are not necessary anyway.
* I removed the one that outright contradicts WP:TRIVIA.  If you're trying to change or revoke that guideline, do it there.
Anyhow, that's my review-cum-edit of REL4.  I hope you can make use of some of it.--Father Goose 20:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fantastic, a version REL4.1 —WikiLen 08:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanations for my changes