Wikipedia talk:Relevance/Archive 3

message: User:WikiLen/Relevance is heavily trimmed, revised and refactored from version REL3. Changes are inspired by input from numerous editors,—thanks!—including:
* Review A — by Edgarde
* Critique of WikiLen's draft — by Father Goose
I split draft REL3 into three parts to make draft REL4:
# User:WikiLen/Relevance — draft REL4
# "What claims of relevance are false" — an essay
# "Indirect relevance is sometimes OK" — an essay
Highlights of this draft:
* Edited to focus on "actionable" items.
* Summarizes the two essays I spun off and provides links to those essays. 
* The "questions three" concept designed by Father Goose has been cut (impact, fundamental information, and distinguishing traits). I will address my reasons for dropping this at a later opportunity. 
* The section on splitting off to new articles has been cut.
My goal remains to find consensus... —WikiLen 06:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refactoring of version REL4 complete 

message: There now exists a REL4.1 version of this fork. —WikiLen 21:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New version for this fork 

message: There now exists a REL4.2 version of this fork. Credit to Edgarde for this excellent lead section. —WikiLen 11:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New version again — with new lead 

message: Version numbering is now broken and only makes sense to WikiLen (whose numbering incremented from 3.x to 4.1) & the Father Goose (whose number incremented from 2.2 to "FG 3.x", spanning existing numbers belonging to WikiLen). I had to scan several articles to figure out which version "3.x" referred to in comments above — it wasn't immediately obvious to me (and will not be for new editors joining this discussion) that FG meant "not in linear descent from 3.0".
I propose we say Father Goose's proposal for the current article (currently filed under Wikipedia:Relevance), and WikiLen's proposal for User:WikiLen/Relevance, regardless of where they are located. / edg ☺ ★ 06:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Better still, I hope there will just be Wikipedia:Relevance from now on, with everyone contributing to that single version.  The version numbers were useful shorthand for referring to specific major rewrites, but in the forked state, that became unworkable.--Father Goose 06:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: On second thought, I'd like to recommend Wikipedia:Relevance be renamed 27B stroke 6.--Father Goose 08:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Version nomenclature

message: I've added these subsections
*Avoid dictionary-style definitions (which became a problem in a few articles, notably Misandry and Sex tourism), which I'm satisfied with
*Scope, which needs clarification (the very term scope is not familiar to some readers) and may need much more work.
I think these subsections contain more-or-less actionable advice and address real problems I have seen. (If you want the dreary case histories, ask me.)
I'm wondering if the existing proposals can be organized into my proposed demarcation, but that may be the fevered dream of a madman. / edg ☺ ★ 06:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition

message: :Strive for a minimalist version perhaps in the tradition of WP:IAR?There exists no "minimalist tradition of WP:IAR" in writing guidelines. You've brought WP:IAR up several times and I don't believe anyone has ever agreed this was anything but counter-productive. A guideline should not ignore itself, or other guidelines. If you want to ignore all rules, go ahead, be free and freaky; but you logically opt out of co-authoring guidelines.This article has been in revision since May, and no one has come up with a satisfying "minimalist" concept. Unless you are entirely satisfied with no rules ... tear down everything ... entropy is the highest order ... inertia, stalemate, accusation and counteraccusation, these are better than any guideline, you might want to let go of your minimalist ideal.
:Is "Relevancy emerges" a paradigm to employ for this guideline?Every version (other than reverting to empty versions) has contained an equivalent to There are no general rules for establishing relevance in all cases, so often it is determined by consensus on what is likely to be useful to readers. I don't see a need to dwell on this. However, you seem to use this issue to recommend a policy of (in effect) slow edit warring and obstruction. No idea what motivates this, but it seems highly counter-productive. I recall Father Goose calling this tendency "self-immolation".
:Honestly, some of your "Hard issues" seem like pointless roadblocks. I don't see the points at all, and I feel like they have been brought up repeatly, and responded to already. / edg ☺ ★ 20:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Need guidelines to prevent impassioned editors from hacking scope to create or destroy relevance?That question is not a sentence. Are you proposing these are needed, or questioning the need? / edg ☺ ★ 20:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Does Relevancy need instructions to prevent impassioned editors from hacking scope to create or destroy relevance?If scope is identified as a resource for determining relevance, then yes the guideline not to make an artificial scope is a good idea. I think I have explained this several times on this Talk page, plus added a hidden comment in the article so the reason for this instruction is understood to future editors. / edg ☺ ★ 20:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Edgarde, I find this frustrating. You are in some contextual misunderstanding that I can't figure out. I am looking forward to clarification from you. FYI: I am just trying to list the issues behind the fact that there are two forks. We can debate these issues later. Also, when I list something it does not mean I am expressing a position on it or even think it is an important issue. It just means I am predicting it needs consensus work of some kind. —WikiLen 22:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: By the way, there is obvously a misunderstanding with my reference to "minimalist" in the WP:IAR tradition — I will fix it. The tradition I see: short is elegant and effective. My intent by the reference was to keep alive consideration of your "minimal" version. The misunderstanding is my fault — thinking on how to fix it for future readers. —WikiLen 22:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Regarding "responded to already": Yes, I know you have already responded to many of these "hard issues", probably all of them. That I list them does not mean I think your resolution of them is flawed. I would be grateful if you would tell me of any I am missing. This includes issues we have already resolved at this talk page and simply need to be communicated—not lost—in the consensus work that lies ahead. —WikiLen 22:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Late additions

message: Basicly the length of this article is tied to the amount of examples included under Establishing relevance.
The big version I came up is basicly The minimal plus 4.5kb of Establishing sorted by type of information.
Guidelines:
*Definition (could be called defining information) — always worth having.
*Detail – decided by editors, with help from relevant WikiProjects. No good overall guideline was found in either Proposal, or talk page.
*Context – the "Three questions" seemed most relevant here, and may provide good limits; otherwise, instruction is to offlink as much as possible.
*plus a few bonus guidelines, under the info type they seem most applicable.
Advantages:
*clear guideline on definition, IMO
*decent suggestions on other information types, and refers to appropriate guidance where available
*flexibility: any good instruction can (consensus pending) be included in this article without needing to cover everything
Disadvantages:
*probably not the last word
*optimised for instruction creep
*irrational nut behind the keyboard errors (i.e. pitfalls) are not addressed
*failure to achieve desired conciseness. See The minimal.
*also less likely to be approved than The minimal.
I also expanded Article length contraints. A minimal version can easily be made with this update by simply deleting the entire Establishing relevance section.
Okay I see people are waking up. I'm quitting for the time being. Other editors are encouraged to edit, revert and villify as needed. / edg ☺ ★ 16:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I'd prefer it tho if everyone got a chance to look at the long version before it was drastically revised. Maybe I'm overrating my contributions. / edg ☺ ★ 16:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Details arranged by type of information

message: :The moon's equatorial circumference is 10,921 km.
*laughs* You should be aware that that specific number was added by yours truly and is of uncertain veracity: Talk:Moon#Equatorial circumference.  Wikipedia is an incestuous little place sometimes.
One thing I learned after my first draft was to avoid examples wherever possible.  I'll probably tear this one out for that reason.--Father Goose 22:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The moon is made of green cheese