Wikipedia talk:Relevance/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Rationale for this proposed guideline

Recently, several thousand articles were tagged with Template:Trivia. Disputes broke out at both Template talk:Trivia and Wikipedia talk:Avoid trivia sections in articles over language to the effect of "remove trivia when it's irrelevant" because Wikipedia has no existing guidance on the subject of "relevance".

The page that existed here until now ([1]) was a placeholder, directing people to either WP:Notability or WP:Trivia. WP:NOT restricts certain limited classes of material; WP:Notability covers subjects or articles as a whole; and WP:Trivia says to remove irrelevant items. That's all Wikipedia has had to say on the subject of relevance until now.

Without a standard for "relevance", this battle is going to rage on indefinitely. So I've done my best to establish such a standard. I ask everyone to look it over, and I'm sure you'll be happy to tell me if it's wrong, wrong, wrong. --Father Goose 04:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I think such clarification is long overdue. The trivia tagging and a long chain of events that led up to the previous discussions show the need for clarification of this subjective, yet important term. I don't see any problems with what you have written (although maybe I'm not looking hard enough ;p), but I think the specifics in what you wrote need to be fleshed out a bit more. --Android Mouse 05:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, instruction creep must have its day. I'm betting on a final length of about 20 pages. ;) --Father Goose 05:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

...with the talk page reaching over 100 :p --Android Mouse 05:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I think there has been too much criticism against this article, even if much of it has been valid. I would just point out that I am very happy with the attempt of this kind of guideline. It is much more needed than the fuzzy trivia guidelines. However, I also see that much more work is needed before it is good. Specifically, I am not too happy with all the examples. Examples are good, but they take space and attention from the important bits. I do not know if it would be a good idea to add an "examples" section or perhaps a separate page, where this page could point? Mlewan 17:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Problems to solve

I (WikiLen) am not claiming any proposal successfully solves these yet. To solve:

1. Rule-creep hassles problem: A relevancy "policy" that just links to other places will feed fuel to some editors, especially new ones such as myself, leaving an opening for: "Hey, there is a policy. It is scattered about. Let's move it all into one place — cool..." ;)
2. Bogus problem: Editors need a small set of sentences/phrases, located in policy/guidelines, that they can then quote to wake up confused editors — editors using bogus claims for relevancy. Saves the experienced editor from needing to explain how it is bogus.
3. New-user problem: New users need to be educated about relevancy. First, they naturally want to know about it and second, being so educated has efficiency benefits for the rest of us.

I personally, find the sentiment, "no problems to solve", has a certain elegance to it like WP:Ignore all rules. However, when I look carefully I find "yes", there are problems to solve, certainly minor and mundane but real nevertheless. —WikiLen 01:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

That Wikipedia may be getting along fine without a Relevancy guideline, provides no clue as to how things would be with such a guideline. Efficiencies could be worse or better depending on what's in it. However, doesn't the risk it would make things worse loom far larger than the possibility things would improve? I think "yes" — perhaps Father Goose and I have been too ambitious in our scope. What would a simple guideline say that succinctly addresses the above three rather ordinary "problems to solve." And, by the way, I know my version REL4 (archived here) has not succeeded at this — didn't clearly grasp the "problems to solve" until now. —WikiLen 04:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's better not to have a "relevance" policy page. Few or no problems to solve, and the various proposed draft pages don't do much to solve them anyway; whether something is sufficiently relevant just has to be argued out on talk pages.

If there is to be such a policy, the current sections "keep article focused" and "the subject of an article" are pretty good. The section "establishing relevance" offers questions but not answers, which is not much help, especially not if it's to be a policy.

I strongly disagree with this command: "Always explain the effect that a fact has had on the subject." This suggests that for every fact mentioned in every article, additional space in the article has to be taken up explaining why the fact is relevant.

The section "fundamental information" merely replaces the loosely-defined word "relevance" with the loosely-defined word "fundamental".

I disagree with the following: "Facts that are needed to provide a fundamental description of the subject are always relevant. These facts explain what the subject is, what it does (or did), and what it is notable for." Things that the subject did are not always relevant, e.g. what a celebrity had for breakfast one day. Very famous human subjects may be notable for huge numbers of things; not all of these are relevant to an article about the subject.

I still get the feeling, particularly towards the end, that the draft policy was written with only articles about human subjects in mind, but not nearly as much as in earlier drafts.

Sorry for all the negative comments. I appreciate the work people have put into this and I see that it's an improvement over earlier drafts. --Coppertwig 17:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

As long as criticism is specific -- as yours has been -- then it's helpful, and much appreciated.

Arguments over relevance do have to be carried out on talk pages, and this proposal is intended to strengthen that process. One thing to keep in mind is that often, that discussion doesn't take place at all. There is a formal process for deleting articles, where people are notified and discussion must take place first. But entire swaths of content can be deleted without so much as a peep, and after it's deleted, there's usually no sign it was there in the first place.

I don't advocate that every single addition or removal be discussed -- that is senseless, of course. But when the discussions do happen, I want to aid both sides by having a solid framework in place, something that states the basics (in a way that reflects consensus) about what belongs in an article and what doesn't. This guideline by no means trumps discussion -- it promotes it. When disputes arise, each side has to present their rationale for inclusion or deletion. Right now, those discussions typically devolve into WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and little is achieved. Other times I've seen WP:TRIVIA invoked to justify wholesale deletion, because its advice simplifies down to "integrate or delete" -- and let's face it, integration takes work. This guideline improves that situation, by explaining what context is necessary for meaningful integration, as well as when and how to move off-topic information.

This guideline also tries to lay down some criteria by which to evaluate whether material "offers a broader understanding of the subject". I think most editors would agree at least with the principle underlying this, even if the criteria may need further tweaking and explanation. I think they are a decent approximation of the internal reasoning editors have been using to date. But I readily accept that they need further criticism, field testing, and rewording to state things clearly and correctly, and to represent the consensus position as well as possible.

I don't think the "questions" should be turned into statements -- relevance comes from context, so what should be stressed is not "whether something is relevant", but "whether something can be made relevant" through the addition of context. The answer to that question must be provided by editors, not the guideline. But the guideline does stress that the question must be answered -- "why is this relevant?" -- and gives specific guidance on how to answer that question. I believe this helps to reduce the nebulosity and subjectivity inherent in evaluating relevance.

I can't eliminate all ambiguity from language, but the specific phrase "needed to provide a fundamental description of the subject" is not quite as open-ended as you claim. I also can't forestall all wikilawyering, although any obvious loopholes or omissions remaining in the present guideline can be identified and amended. I solicit all criticism and assistance people are willing to offer.

"Always explain the effect..." probably states the case too strongly. I'll try to fix that -- or if you're willing to fix it, all the better. Similarly, you're right about "not everything it did" is relevant... I'll ponder how to better word that.

The "Connections" and "Biographies" sections do address two "special cases". They could be removed from the guideline, but a great number of fights over "relevance" center on these types of cases, so I think some additional words on them are worthwhile. It's reasonable to shed additional light on areas where it is most needed.

I can't help but feel like perfection is being demanded of this proposal. It covers far-reaching and important territory, so I grant that it should be evaluated with a fairly conservative eye. If it's dead wrong, okay, torpedo it. But if it gets some things right and some things wrong, help me fix the wrong bits. My is aim to cast as much light as possible on an area of ongoing contention. The more people are willing to aid me in this work, the more clarity Wikipedia can offer.

Thanks very much for your input.--Father Goose 22:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I double-checked the proposal against your "Things that the subject did are not always relevant, e.g. what a celebrity had for breakfast one day" comment. A claim that something like that is relevant ignores the sentence that immediately proceeds "what the subject is or does" -- namely, "needed to provide a fundamental description". Any language in any guideline can be taken out of context and wikilawyered, but I don't think anybody trying to be reasonable would pretend that celebrity breakfasts are part of a fundamental description. (Maybe if the celebrity in question were the Pillsbury Dough Boy...)--Father Goose 02:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Things can be WikiLawyered can also be subject to legitimate misunderstanding, so WikiLawyering should be considered as more an example than a sole concern.

Made these changes:

1. Restored Impact instruction without specific requirement for explanation.[2] This way impact can be apparent from context, or needs to be made apparent, without requiring an explicit explanation — should be fine for an encyclopedia. Does this work? I still feel the term "Impact" is a bit vague.
2. Changed Fundamental information to Definition, since I think this is the intended meaning.[3]
3. Anticipating the term "Definition" to be misinterpreted, I added a warning against dictionary cruft,[4] which has been a problem in some articles.
4. Sorted Establish relevance items by likely sequence with an article.[5] No implication of importance is intended.

Revert whatever does not help. / edg ☺ ★ 03:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

"Effect" might be a workable substitute for "impact", although I think "impact" conveys something more like "a measurable effect", which is better.--Father Goose 05:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Call for editor participation

Requests for input link to here from editor talk pages.

Editors,

This project Wikipedia:Relevance requests your presence. We have come to realize we have two disparate forks that are failing to come together as one version. We have been in a pattern of alternating which fork is in the project namespace. This has brought considerable polish to both forks and has brought them closer together. Additionally, healthy collaboration occurred that included editors contributing at both forks and content being copied between forks. The forks, without prejudice as to which is better:

• Father Goose fork, currently also at the main project page
• WikiLen fork

For various reasons we are ending these current approaches:

• No longer asking other editors to hold off while we polish different versions.
• No longer agreeing that versions can remain in the project namespace without consensus support from the wider set of participating editors.

Of special need (please reply in subsections below):

• Is there consensus to revise the relevancy policy beyond the pre-proposal version?
• Any consensus on what has been done so far?
• Any suggestions on next steps for moving towards consensus?

Suggest placing all comments in sub-topics below — any where you want. The sub-topics are just containers for discussions. They are also a heads up on how I propose to refractor discussion should it become necessary or useful. I recognize the best time for refactoring is usually right when a discussion begins or well after it is done. —WikiLen 14:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Stop attempt issues

Issue: Is there a consensus that it is appropriate to revise the relevancy policy beyond the pre-proposal version?

Refactoring from #Moving forward issues:

I think that the lack of interest should be telling you that there is no problem requiring a solution. It is like legislating guidelines on breathing air. --Kevin Murray 19:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Kevin, what would be the test to confirm your assertion? Consensus? —WikiLen 20:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, see #Problems to solve, above, for related discussion. —WikiLen 20:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want to test the interest, how about trying an RfC? A question like Is this needed? would be the test you're asking for. My question to editors present: would the proposal writers accept "No" for an answer?

I am fine with an RfC and I would accept the answer. The question, though, would need to be: "Is the pre-proposal version acceptable?" Same question really, but without the POV that the question "Is this needed?" expresses. If the answer is stick with the pre-proposal version, it would put us in an interesting position since the pre-proposal version is just flat wrong. It treats notable and relevant as the same thing. Fixing that has struck me, at times, as the consensus waiting to emerge (maybe emerging with a touch of elegance thrown in). Still, I would much rather see these tweaks, listed above, to the social machine that Wikpedia is. —WikiLen 00:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I second that, and go further. Anybody who hasn't been involved in the "trivia" issue -- either pro- or anti- -- would not realize that there is a need for this guideline, provided it frames the issue correctly. One could say, "then keep it specific to trivia", but trivia can appear in any article, at which point the relevance issue is in play. The trivia issue is more than a trivia issue, as well as more than a "trivia sections" issue.

Before an RFC, I'd try out Wikipedia:Centralized discussion -- but like I said, I'm in the middle of another rewrite, so let's see how the local community reacts to it first.--Father Goose 01:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know much about Wikipedia:Centralized discussion — trust other's judgments on this. Do we need more discussions or more opinions or both? —WikiLen 01:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Opinions are good for polls. But it's not clear what kind of response you'll get from either place. Maybe very little. What you really want to do is engage the people who are clearly interested in the subject of trivia, and thus relevance, in the first place. I would shoot down a great many policies as "unnecessary" if I was unfamiliar with the issues they addressed.--Father Goose 02:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

On the subject of Trivia, it has not been established that Relevance is the place to address what trivia is. Trivia is, after all, a special case. Normally, the presumption is that rules on special cases are in the guidelines for those special cases. If Coppertwig is even only partially right:

The editors at each page decide by discussion among themselves what is or is not worth having at each article. For each topic, there's a different set of criteria. — User:Coppertwig

then, we have many special cases to deal with in Relevance. Much better to just have a summary refererence in the Relevance guideline on any special cases, with a link to the main article for the special case. And most importantly, let discussion at the special case be the vehicle for achieving consensus regarding it. This argues that your "three questions" approach belongs in the guideline for Trivia, if anywhere at all. —WikiLen 14:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Issues resolved

Issue: Any consensus on what has been done so far?

Consensus from "two forks" phase says these belong in the guideline (a consensus of 3 or 4):

• Primarily, something is relevant if it is "about the subject of the article."
• Relevance in subtopics is no different than relevance for the article.
• Threshold for being relevant varies depending on the subject of the article.
• Details not directly relevant to the primary topic should be moved to the appropriate article.
• There are exceptions to when material must be directly about the subject, such as for establishing context or for Trivia lists.

Compiled by WikiLen 01:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC).

Wait a second, you're saying things don't have to be directly relevant if they're in a trivia list? There's no way that reflects consensus. Those items get deleted fastest of all.--Father Goose 02:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

My error... fixed (strikeout). —WikiLen 13:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Moving forward issues

Issue: Any suggestions on next steps for moving towards consensus?

• Please realize that consensus to create a new guideline requires demonstration of consensus among the WP community, not just a vote of those participating in the project. This should be widely advertised and show support from more than a handful of editors. It is odd that more people have not expressed opinions here; I think that we are competing with the sunshine of summer. --Kevin Murray 17:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, agree regarding "WP community". I have wondered if many people left this project alone to see what Father Goose and I would come up with. However, our numbers are small even considering that. For example, I have posted a request on the talk page of every editor that has contributed to the project (skipping those who only made minor changes) and the count is only 8 (beyond the core 4 that worked on the forks). That makes for a dozen editors—max—for the "larger set of editors." Too small a set I hear you saying. Perhaps I (or anyone) should post at "Requests for comment/Policies" as a next step. The really big step, of course, would be to advertise at the Village pump — has never been done for this project. Anything OK by me. Do you have any advice on this? —WikiLen 19:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that the lack of interest should be telling you that there is no problem requiring a solution. It is like legislating guidelines on breathing air. --Kevin Murray 19:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Refactoring alert: Thread on "lack of interest" forked to above, #Stop attempt issues. —WikiLen 20:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the redirect is unnecessary — no one is filling out the questionnaire. / edg ☺ ★ 20:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not a questionaire, rather a structure for refactoring should anyone, like me, want to do that. As long as you are happy with me refactoring from time to time I am happy with you putting comments anywhere you want. BTW, I changed the sub headings so it doesn't look like a questionaire. Probably going to get myself in trouble for that — bold but foolish? Revert back if you think I you are keeping me out of trouble. Thanks, —WikiLen 23:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies seems like a good idea. This project could use feedback from someone other than the maybe 3 regulars on this Talk page. Village pump? That seems too big. / edg ☺ ★ 19:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I personally haven't been soliciting wider attention lately because it's easier to respond to a little feedback at a time. With each increase in exposure, the thing should be more solidly-crafted. I'm happy to say the proposal has improved throughout the dialogues we've had so far. What I most want to avoid is people who look at it, see its shortcomings, declare it wrong, and never revisit it. That produces a false impression that it will never meet with approval. I'd rather work to bring the presently-involved parties closer together than go into the marketplace with something that is only partly functional. There is no deadline.

Like I said yesterday, I'm trying to amend the "three questions" approach. That section is the biggest remaining barrier to its adoption. I would really like to rectify that section before we go back into the marketplace.--Father Goose 20:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Father Goose, you agreed to "OPTION B":

OPTION B: Declare dancing forks is not working; bring in the larger set of editors; and start working on consensus.

And agreed with this:

It's my impression Option B is in force right now, ... is being used as the baseline for continuing work.

Then after I invite other editors to show up, you ask them to not comment on or edit your work and to do so with "no deadline." Where is the consensus work in this? Patience is wearing thin. We have respected your request. There have been no edits in the namespace for three days. We are being extremely deferential to you, no doubt, out or respect for the tremendous effort you have made and for your patient ways of participating. Out of respect for space we have given you it would seem gracious on your part to at least give us a (reasonable) date certain for ending this hands-off approach. —WikiLen 16:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if I have been taxing your patience. Earlier this week, I was finally able to see that the "three questions" were not going to be an effective approach. More importantly, edgarde's latest round of contributions jogged my thinking about how I might replace them. However, as you have seen, it can be very hard to find just the right words to express your ideas.

I've been giving the rewrite a couple of hours each day, turning the ideas over in my head, searching for that "flash of inspiration" edgarde spoke of on more than one occasion. This work hasn't been reflected on the main page because I don't want to clutter it with abortive ideas. This was the same reason I reverted edgarde's work -- not because I disagreed with it but because the ideas behind it were incomplete.

Tonight the ideas I've been trying to reformulate finally seem to be taking shape. I can only hope that they will hold up to further work, and that you will find them agreeable -- or at least more so than prior drafts. I notice that you are about to go on vacation; I will do what I can to complete the rewrite before you go, and I would be happy to leave things at the "discussion" stage until you return, so as to give you every possible chance to ensure that your views are represented.

Relevance is a tricky subject to tackle. Patience will be our greatest ally.--Father Goose 04:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Invoking "my turn" — reverting to pre-proposal

I (WikiLen) note from Father Goose, above:

Earlier this week, I was finally able to see that the "three questions" were not going to be an effective approach.

Father Goose, as evidenced by the above quote, you've effectively withdrawn your latest candidate. The process of endless new attempts—in vivo—can't be allowed to go on. (In the "dancing forks" approach it would now be my turn to post a candidate.) Furthermore, you have broken your agreement (unwittingly I am sure) to "start working on consensus" (OPTION B above). Therefore, I find our agreement on how to work together has reverted to the "dancing forks" agreement. In that spirit and for 'my turn', I post the pre-proposal version. This puts us in a good place:

• Only your original version is considered 'rejected'.
• The draft space for your fork remains.
• We are effectively off the track of "dancing forks" and of allowing work without consensus to remain in the project namespace.
• You are free to revise your fork and seek consensus to place it in the project namespace. (In the future, you should expect it to be reverted unless it has consensus that it belongs there. Appeals to 'just let me work on it' are only appropriate at the project namespace when the work being revised is there via consensus.)
• We can now do an RfC to answer the question "Is the pre-proposal version acceptable?"

I am ending my support for any fork being posted to the namespace without consensus that it belongs there. —WikiLen 13:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

That particular question -- "Is the pre-proposal version acceptable?" -- is a poll question, and the answer will be "yes". I would like to suggest that you solicit comments specifically on your version 4.2, as you have received little feedback on it, and we do not know where it stands.--Father Goose 16:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

As to comments on my version, I think to solicit comments at his point would be divisive. The point is to achieve consensus, not find a winner. That our forks have not merged into one candidate is telling — means fundamental issues need to be addressed. I am convinced, however, that it was useful to get initial comments so that our two forks could mature into polished showcases. —WikiLen 18:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

As to "the answer will be yes." (Yes will mean attempts to revise Relevance are shut down.) What is wrong with that? Without that fundamental question answered we have no context within which to achieve consensus (no consensus to achieve a consensus). With issues that kept our forks apart resolved, via consensus, there will emerge a final candidate that actually gets accepted. It is during this final phase I expect my 'showcase version' our 'showcase versions' to have some role. —WikiLen 18:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I must admit to being confused by your comments. Are you essentially saying that adopting your version is the only way that will lead to consensus?--Father Goose 19:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Ohh, wait, I'm starting to see. You're asserting that the "old version" refers questions of relevance to the notability guideline, and as such, is inadequate.--Father Goose 19:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Correct. —WikiLen 19:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

---

The forks:

• User:Father Goose/Relevance
• User:WikiLen/Relevance

'Notability' version needs to be fixed

This topic is linked to from an RfC request.

QUESTION: Is the historical version of Wikipedia:Relevance acceptable?" Many attempts to improve it have been fought with "guideline not needed."

Camp-fix-it
The historical "umbrella" version, also called "Notability version", has blatant errors in it. No one argues against this. Basically, it treats Relevance as if it is the same thing as Notability. However, it is well established that a fact can be relevant for a particular article and yet not notable for that article or even any article. There is no consensus on what a "fix" would be nor is this request asking for opinions on that — OK to give them. Historically, attempts to fix the quideline have been bold. However, the argument "not needed" is presumed to even apply to minimalist fixes.

—compiled by WikiLen 17:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

---

Camp-not-needed
Many editors feel no guideline on Relevancy is needed. To quote one,

It is like legislating guidelines on breathing air. --Kevin Murray

It is also felt that allowing the historical "umbrella" version to be edited would result in rule creep. And that raises related concerns that rule creep at "Relevance" would have wide-reaching undesirable effects.

—compiled by WikiLen 17:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

---

"Stay on topic" draft now complete

Have we moved forward another notch? Please let me know. I've posted it at both User:Father Goose/Relevance and Wikipedia:Relevance.

This draft incorporates several changes inspired by edgarde's draft, and several changes of my own based on ongoing feedback. I'm going to post it back to Wikipedia:Relevance because that was the original plan, and, well, my patience is getting worn thin too. The RfC, above, links directly to the "pre-proposal version", so I hope that initiative and continuing work on the proposal do not get in each other's way.--Father Goose 06:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

In light of the fact an RfC is going on I don't think it appropriate to force a second discussion by posting a new version to the project namespace, especially since there is no consensus on fundamental issues that need to be resolved before deciding what goes into the namespace. The RfC is dealing with one of those issues. To list these:

• Is the "embrella" version, also called "pre-proposal" and "Notability", acceptable? This is the RfC under way. If yes there would be no reason to post any change to the project namespace.
• Is there a consensus that a "guideline is not needed" or are there some problems to solve that the guideline can address? Without knowing this we can't have a debate on changes to make.
• What role should this guideline play in addressing rule creep? Should it ignore it; should it have virtually no rules so as to not contribute to it; should it explicitly mention rule creep and promote avoiding it?

These three issues above are fundamental to any discussions on what goes into this guideline. Without a consensus on these three, there is no mandate on what to discuss. How can it make sense to debate Father Goose's just posted version? It must be reverted as having no consensus what-so-ever (unless you count consensus among 2 or 3 editors). It is for these reasons that I am reverting Father Goose's recent edit. —WikiLen 12:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Well said by WikiLen and I support his action. --Kevin Murray 16:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

All right, here are one editor's answers to the above set of questions:

• The "notability" version directs readers to WP:N or WP:TRIVIA, which is wrong, because neither addresses relevance, and if they are used as "relevance guidelines", they give the wrong advice.
• It would be better to have a guideline than not, as long as the guideline addresses all its issues correctly.
• The guideline has no role in addressing rule creep whatsoever. I'm not aware of a single guideline that does take on that role, unless there's one that serves as a companion piece to Wikipedia:Ignore all rules.--Father Goose 18:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that you replaced the main page with the "old version" as a unilateral, undiscussed action. This isn't necessary as part of your RfC, unless you're trying to have the RfC supplant the work other editors were in the middle of here. Don't invoke consensus if your own actions aren't consistent with it.--Father Goose 18:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I refer you to your discussion of yesterday: (about the version you had in the project namespace)

I was finally able to see that the "three questions" were not going to be an effective approach. --User:Father Goose

That ended all support, consensus or otherwise, for your "three questions" proposal — hence back to the "umbrella" version. And I found no objection, other than yours just now, to the point I made three days ago:

No longer agreeing that versions can remain in the project namespace without consensus support from the wider set of participating editors. --User:WikiLen

Now lets us work towards consensus on fundamental issues. Your work was vital for revealing what those fundamental issues are. I expect it to continue to be so. —WikiLen 20:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter when the objection is voiced, just that the objection is voiced. You seem to keep framing the discussion according to your views, instead of just expressing your views. This is pretty confusing.

Fundamental issues? The fundamental issues are to keep soliciting more views on the proposal, and to keep improving it until it meets with consensus -- no? I don't know why you're sidetracking it by insisting on moving it off the page. It's not even necessary to do so for your RfC. It's fine to insist that certain things be discussed, but it also seems to me that you're trying to control how other discussions are being conducted.--Father Goose 01:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

My replies (Father Goose in italics): (WikiLen)

• "...keep improving it until it meets with consensus -- no?" — (No.) It is very possible that the umbrella version, even though incorrect, nevertheless has consensus as acceptable. Then, what would there be to improve?
• "...don't know why you're sidetracking it by insisting on moving it off the page" — I have come to believe there is no light at the end of that tunnel you are traveling down. That's just my personal experience.
• "It's not even necessary to do so for your RfC." — but who wants to debate anything with the prospect it will be moot? Frankly, no headway has been made against the "guideline not needed" adherents. It is time to let them win the day or win them over. If my read is correct, they currently represent the consensus. In fact, Edgarde your 'co-author', even believes a guideline is not needed.
• "...seems to me that you're trying to control how other discussions are being conducted" — It's only yours I'm targeting. Specifically, I am trying to persuade you to focus all of your creative energies in a different direction.
• "The fundamental issues are to keep soliciting more views on the proposal" — Could be, but I want you to join me in betting "guideline not needed" is the fundamental issue.

Did I overlook anything? —WikiLen 05:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Something that is "acceptable" can be improved, certainly.
• I'd say quite a bit of headway has been made against the "not needed" camp:

• Edgarde moved from saying "not needed" twice to what appears to be a firm "maybe". It's possible the newest draft may meet with his approval even more, especially considering the hand he had in it.
• Coppertwig went from "misses the point" to "If there is to be such a policy, the current sections 'keep article focused' and 'the subject of an article' are pretty good." Many parts of the proposal that he criticized on July 21 have been changed as of the "stay on topic" version.
• Newbyguesses proposed merging "Version 1.0" with WP:TRIVIA, but has approved of it fully since 2.0.
• Kevin Murray's stance is that of a stalwart opposer of "rule creep", and his criticisms have been unspecific. In fact, I don't believe he's offered any criticisms, just opposition. I don't expect to win him over, nor do I worry that I need to. Consensus does not require unanimity, nor could Wikipedia function if it did.

• Based on comments or actions, I count Android Mouse, Mlewan, Newbyguesses, myself, and... possibly you? I can't even tell anymore -- firmly in the "guideline needed" camp. Kevin Murray is a definitely not, Coppertwig is a probably not, edgarde is a maybe, and Radiant hasn't commented since the beginning, so I don't know where he stands. Although this covers everyone who has commented on this page, it is of course a fraction of Wikipedia's editors at large. But I'm willing to treat it as a reasonable sample of viewpoints, and I don't think things look too bad, especially considering that the proposal has met with more approval with each successive revision. The "stay on topic" version is only a couple of days old and hasn't been commented on yet -- however, what remains of "establishing relevance" is extensively tamed, and that was the biggest remaining source of opposition. The other sections have been further streamlined as well.
• The ultimate test this proposal will have to face is when it finally gets linked to from WP:TRIVIA and Template:Trivia. This was its original purpose -- those pages speak of "irrelevance" as a deletion criteron, without having anything more to say, despite it being such a volatile term. That doesn't mean that Relevance is solely a "trivia" issue -- but trivia is the beachhead.
• Moot? No light at the end of the tunnel? If the proposal were stagnating, I might have to agree. But the thing's just gone through another round of improvement, and each with each round, it has met with more approval. I'm not talking about making unending changes -- each change so far has done more to address specific criticisms leveled at it. I consider this an effective way of building consensus. I'm just mystified by your actions of late.
• If you want to persuade me, then make your case; don't commandeer the process.--Father Goose 07:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[indent reset] Father Goose, are suggesting that since it seems possible there is community wide support for fixing the guideline, we should then just skip testing for that support? BTW, we are effectively testing for whether there is support for anyone (or you) to drive the project space. The evidence so far is not. As to moving forward on your track to drive the project space, you really need to convince other editors not me. I am only one, not a consensus. —WikiLen 11:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Only two editors have removed the proposal from the project space: edgarde, before the version that followed his "Review B", and yourself. Edgarde edited the post-Review B version directly on the project page, strongly suggesting he no longer opposed it being there. I'd be surprised if the "stay on topic" version doesn't meet with his approval even more, considering the additional influence he has had over it. Nobody else has suggested that it shouldn't be there -- not even Kevin Murray, who changed its proposal tag to "essay" when it was first posted here, and opposes there being a guideline on this subject in general, but at no point reverted it. Nor have any of the authors of the pre-proposal version raised any objections to its replacement by the proposal.

I don't know how well the "stay on topic" version is going to be received, but it's my belief it has crawled ever closer toward community approval. An RfC on whether the proposal belongs on this page doesn't seem necessary to me at all. What is needed is additional input as to whether it meets with approval, and/or comments about what its remaining problems are. The place I intend to solicit that next round of input is at WP:TRIVIA and Template:Trivia, where editors with a known interest in the subject (both pro- and anti-) lurk -- but ideally, I'd first like to hear responses to the "stay on topic" version from those who have commented on prior versions -- yourself, edgarde, Newbyguesses, Coppertwig, Mlewan, plus anyone else who would be willing to speak up.--Father Goose 17:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Father Goose, I request that you hold off discussions on your draft. Some editors, apparently including yourself, expect the RfC to decide things on the side of "no guideline needed." I note this comment of yours,

That particular question -- "Is the pre-proposal version acceptable?" -- is a poll question, and the answer will be "yes". --User:Father Goose

Who, but the ardent supporters of your version, would want to debate your proposal when even you predict events that will make it moot? That means any discussion would be missing important editors. Better that we join together with Mlewan to make the case for keeping it alive. I don't need to drive such discussion. You can take the lead, if you so desire. I will be on vacation beginning tomorrow and may only have brief and limited opportunities for being online. —WikiLen 20:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't aware of what additional language you would use to frame the debate. You used a lot of passive voice: "it is well established"; "the argument is presumed"; "it is also felt", to the point where it's not clear how to respond to the question. A follow-up question you asked was quite different: "...are there some problems to solve that the guideline can address?".

It's possible to answer both questions in the affirmative: "the pre-proposal version is acceptable" and "the guideline can address some problems" without contradiction, while deciding nothing. It's not that I think the proposal has no support, but that you can phrase a question a certain way and get an answer that obfuscates the issue. If I were to ask the question "do you support the ongoing work on the proposal?" (mind you, not "do you support the proposal?"), using the headcount I performed above, I believe the answer would be 5 yes, 1 no, 1 probable no, 1 maybe, and 1 unknown. You could claim that there are others out there who would vote differently, but until we hear from them, I can't presume anything is different.

So why are you saying "panic"? Is there really some kind of problem? Anyhow, enjoy your vacation.--Father Goose 21:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Replies to Father Goose: (WikiLen)

• Please do not confuse the issue by suggesting a group of 9 speaks for the WP community. —WikiLen 03:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• You and I agree: the goal is to have the RfC produce an answer that does not obfuscate the issue. If no one has objections, I will ask Edgarde to review and edit, if necessary, the RfC request above. Although Edgarde favors 'no mandate' I nevertheless trust his ability to phrase it correctly. —WikiLen 03:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Also, as I understand your comments, in the #Stop attempt issues section above, you do not accept Edgarde's suggestion, that we abide by the outcome of the RfC whether it gives a "yes" or a "no" answer. —WikiLen 03:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Those 9 speak for themselves. The other 90,000 have yet to speak. When they do speak, I will listen to them. I have no illusions: even if all of those 9 were with me, I know more than just they would have to agree with the guideline, if it is to be a guideline. However, you keep claiming "lack of consensus" to take disruptive actions that you alone are advocating. Stop. Now.
• The only RfC I would support is one that said "please comment on the proposal". If people then said "I like it", "I don't like it", or "it needs this change" -- or if they changed it themselves, I'd be fine with that. That's not to say that I'd agree with every change, but my right-to-revert is as basic as any other editor's. Then we'd discuss things, and then hopefully we'd reach a greater mutual understanding. Any yes/no type question is misguided -- from WP:POL: "A proposal's status is not determined by counting votes." Your behavior of late, to be honest, strikes me as forum shopping. I can't help but believe you're trying to disrupt this proposal so as to push forward your own views, some of which have been accepted, some of which have not.--Father Goose 05:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[indent reset] Father Goose, I remain unconvinced we should honor your request to control the project space. Your actions force me to point out that the count of those interested in discussing your "stay on topic" version is zero. —WikiLen 12:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the proposal to the project page. "No consensus exists" cannot be cited as support for your own position. If you're trying to wipe out the proposal for your own reasons, say so. Lately you've been speaking in impersonal passive voice when expressing your own opinions, but that doesn't broaden your authority, and it just makes your viewpoint harder to understand. It seems to me that you've stopped trying to explain your views, and are just trying to use them as fiat to run interference because your own proposal met with no interest.--Father Goose 20:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

New "stay on topic" draft

Have we moved forward another notch? Please let me know. I've posted it at both User:Father Goose/Relevance and Wikipedia:Relevance.--Father Goose 18:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Progress or turning around in circles

I have not been very active in this discussion. I am afraid that I may not be very active in the future either, and others may have the same reason as me: there are too many too little constructive entries. I simply do not have the time to follow all the updates. I apologize.

Nevertheless, here are my present opinions:

• This guideline is still badly needed. Browsing through the discussion page, I do not see any convincing argument against it. If designed correctly, it may become one of the most important guidelines of all - deciding what gets included and what gets excluded from Wikipedia.
• The revision of yesterday still needs a lot of work, but it is a much better basis for discussion than the latest one.

It is possible that it will be quicker to get a result if you break down the discussion in points. You could for example take "Connections between subjects" and get an agreement on that paragraph before you move on to "Biographical details". Or just list which sections are potentially needed, and then take them one by one.

I am sincerely grateful to all you who have time to read and comment on all the modifications. Mlewan 18:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd do the point-by-point approach if we had more active participants. If you have any specific points to offer right now -- or edits to make -- I'd be happy to see them. As it is, we're lucky to have gotten as much discussion as we have had. Few people prowl the back halls of the Wikipedia: namespace.

I'm sure participation would increase dramatically if this were linked to from Template:Trivia and WP:TRIVIA, but I don't want to do that until the proposal has no major faults. If people's first impressions are "that's wrong", it's going to be hard to get them to look at it again. If we get to the point where most camps say "that's okay, but...", then I'd say we're sea-worthy. No page is ever going to be perfect in all people's eyes, but we do have to address all of the major objections first. For all I know, we may be at, or very near that point right now.--Father Goose 20:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Mlewan, my take on what needs discussions: (WikiLen)

• Is the embrella version, also called "pre-proposal" and "Notability", acceptable? This is the RfC under way. If yes there would be no reason to post any change to the project namespace.
• Do rules that address relevance for Trivia belong in guidelines for Trivia or for Relevance? (I think Trivia.)
• Is there a consensus that a "guideline is needed"? Or should Wikipedia:Relevance just be an essay? (I am beginning to favor "essay".)
• What role should this guideline play in addressing rule creep? Should it ignore it; should it have virtually no rules so as to not contribute to it? (Minimum number of rules makes sense to me.)

I submit the failure to get a consensus on these fundamental issues has been the cause of things "turning around in circles." —WikiLen 21:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Events the subject has impacted

Currently the draft at User: Father Goose/Relevance states "Events that have impacted the subject" should be made plain. What about the converse of that (which is in reality what most trivia is), where the subject affects something else? What if the subject is referenced briefly in a talk show, TV show, or song?

I think the draft should require that the subject significantly affect the other in order for it to be noted, I think it should also require that the other topic also be notable (notable enough for its own Wikipedia article). This requirement would eliminate most trivia, specifically the numerous Simpsons and Family Guy ones which make note of any and everything that has been briefly referenced at some time on the show.

Besides that, the draft looks in good shape. Sorry if this has been discussed before. I haven't read all of the previous discussions that have taken place here. --Android Mouse 21:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Well in the case of "referenced in" trivia, the reference is the event in question. If the impact is nothing more than "appeared in", such as "Gerald Ford is one of The X Presidents", there's no impact to Ford, so that fact doesn't belong in his article, although that fact is basic description within The X Presidents. If, on the other hand, it's a really prominent reference (or use), like the use of Also sprach Zarathustra in 2001: A Space Odyssey, the impact can be demonstrated, and it should be mentioned in the Also sprach article.

Although I've been avoiding adding examples to the guideline so as not to rely on them for explanation, at this point, I think adding those two examples to the "Connections between subjects" section will help make things absolutely clear. Thanks for your comments.--Father Goose 23:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've added a pair of examples that I think expresses it well: User:Father_Goose/Relevance#Connections_between_subjects. Let me know if that does the trick.--Father Goose 01:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that will do the trick. Thanks --Android Mouse 18:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Some comments

I oppose having any policy or guideline about "relevance" on the grounds that if there were one, then Wikipedians would start calling things "irrelevant" which are about the topic but which aren't wanted in the article because they're not at the right level of detail, because they're trying to shorten that part of the article, because they already have similar material in the article, etc. In other words, they will use "irrelevant" to mean "this bit of information doesn't, in my opinion, meet the criteria of the Relevance guideline." That usage, if it were to happen, would be quite unfortunate.

I also oppose having such a policy or guideline on other grounds which I've stated previously.

The current proposed guideline does nothing, in my opinion, besides ask editors to use common sense -- which they can save time by doing without having to read such a guideline first. It also gives editors a way to make it look as if their opinion is supported by a guideline: to someone who wants to put something into an article, it will probably appear to them that it obviously meets the criteria of this proposed guideline, because the wording in the guideline is so vague. Making the wording more specific won't help, either, as there's no way you can cover all cases. (For example, one could argue that nothing has "impact" on a mathematical object.) --Coppertwig 14:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment regarding both the WikiLen fork and the Father Goose fork. I think a guideline could be created to simply say "There is intentionally no guideline on Relevance." It might only be that one sentence with a brief explanation. I am also thinking a "What relevance is not" guideline would be an appropriate companion to this. —WikiLen 21:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Could we just make it a redirect to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not? Simplicity. / edg ☺ ★ 04:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I prefer "What Wikipedia is not" as a link rather than a redirect. Using a redirect seems too confining and, in any case, it will still beg the question, "Why is there is no Relevance policy?" If not done as a redirect, it would be possible to have links to essay(s) on why a Relevance policy is not needed. Disclosure: I am biased on this as I think a link to some of my essays especially, What claims of relevance are false, would also be useful. —WikiLen 06:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal renamed

The proposal has been moved to Wikipedia:Relevance of content due to disputes over the page history of Wikipedia:Relevance. Further discussion of the proposal should be conducted there.--Father Goose 19:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Reality check

• Silence equals consent
  Basically the community has been silent on the need for a Relevance guideline — six years of silence if my dates are correct. At face value, the consensus already is that a guideline for Relevance is not needed. Can that consensus be changed? —WikiLen 17:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• How to propose a new policy
  By the advice in the "new policy" help, the chances of establishing a policy on Relevance appear to be zero. It states:

  New prescriptions don't work period unless they come from Jimbo or the board.

  Neither Jimbo Wales or the Board as expressed a need for a guideline on Relevance.

What viable options are there for this current project? —WikiLen 17:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

What next?

Given the rejected status of Wikipedia talk:Relevance of content, what to do with this?

Note: The Edgarde candidate was copied from his post at Proposal rejected.

Canidates:

• Redirect version: Could we just make it a redirect to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not? Simplicity. / edg ☺ ★ 04:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC) (copied from relevance)

• Minimalist version: - WikiLen 15:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Says a Relevance guideline intentionally does not exist.
  • Advises using Writing better articles, WikiProjects, and Featured content for guidance on Relevance.
  • Has links to essays, as appropriate (none may be appropriate initially — best to let the dust settle first).
  • And remains as neither a guideline nor an essay — more as a placeholder to discourage other editors from trying to make a guideline on Relevance.
  • Most importantly: Do submit to the Village Pump, since it is — in effect — implying there is a policy to have no policy.

On the silence=consent issue

I think that Wikipedia will need to change as it ages. At this point (at least in the areas I am working), some kind of article has been written on most of the notable subjects. Very few of these articles are good. Relevance (good article criteria #3) is a big part of that. The focus has to move towards improving existing articles. This means that the good article criteria will become more important, and so a new guideline that clearly lays out the issue is needed. ---- CharlesGillingham 21:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Umbrella - more on false claims of Relevance

I suggest that this "Umbrella" version for the project take on a fuller expression of its current spirit. Currently, the umbrella version 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.

That is, one can't claim something is relevant just because it true and is citable. I suspect listing other instances of false claims of relevance would be even more useful to editors in disputes, especially disputes with new users. I have done an essay, What claims of relevance are false that hits three additional instances where--at least in my experience--many, many users incorrectly put something into an article under the rubik of being relevant. You may have even better instances. —WikiLen 00:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is this here?

This proposed guideline (if I can call it that) is worse than useless, it's completely wrong.

Relevance is not notability and it is not being interesting. To the extent the term has anything other than its plain English meaning, it is a shorthand for relevance to the notability of the subject of an article. In other words, material is suitable for inclusion in the article if it adds in an encyclopedic way to an understanding of what it is about a subject that is worth knowing. Something like that. The quote from the NPOV tutorial (which is not policy or anythign else) is bizarre. Articles have to be encyclopedic, their subjects notable. They do not have to be interesting as such. They have to be worth reading. There is no such thing as notability within an article and the concept is incoherent given the role of notability on Wikipedia. Notability is only about whether an article is worth keeping.

I suggest we delete this page or mark it rejected. There's no content here worth keeping. Wikidemo (talk) 09:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll be bold and make the page state more clearly that it does not have anything official to say about the subject, but keep it as a pseudo-disambiguation page, as it currently is.--Father Goose (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. I hope you and others consider the rewrite acceptable.--Father Goose (talk) 08:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The new text is non-consensus policy squatting, neither helpful nor acceptable. The link to Wikipedia:Relevance of content is just more promotion for a useless, serially-rejected proposal. Please revert to the old "placeholder" version of this page. / edg ☺ ☭ 08:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I reverted this to a previous version, and added WP:CONTEXT. The line "At times just because information is true and citable does not necessarily mean it meets the threshold for notability within a given article" was deleted in recent revisions. This was the closest thing to actionable content in this page; removing it does not make sense. / edg ☺ ☭ 09:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The page should contain no actionable content (except possibly for reiterating what is found in existing policies or guidelines), as it has no community acceptance; it's just an obscure page that has long been ignored by most Wikipedians. "Policy squatting"? I take offense. I really do. You are assuming all kinds of bad faith here. You are fighting an old battle, and apparently assuming I am as well. I am truly angry that you would characterize my actions this way.--Father Goose (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikidemo, unless you feel the page can be useful in some limited capacity as possibly demonstrated by recent (reverted) rewrite, just mark it rejected, as in its current form it contains guidance that was never accepted in the first place.--Father Goose (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Mark it rejected or propose it for deletion? It's a disservice to leave it as an essay because people occasionally stumble on it and if they follow what it says they get the wrong idea about the role of notability, verifiability, trivia, and being "interesting" (a non-concept here). Wikidemo (talk) 00:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I dont see that much harm is being done by this page, at least it has the {{IncGuide}} template, so any user who hits this page is just one click away from all those links. As for the text itself, that doesnt seem to say much. Newbyguesses - Talk 01:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's an example of harm.[6] Someone (and he/she is not the only one) linking to and drawing inspiration from this policy as guidance on whether the trivia essay (which advocates removing trivia) should be merged with the trivia guideline (which advocates integrating relevant trivia into articles). If you tell people trivia must be "notable" to be relevant, people get the mistaken impression that you need citations to two independent sources of significant coverage in reliable publications. So this essay could end up getting sucked into the giant Wikipedia black hole that is the trivia/anti-trivia debate. Wikidemo (talk) 01:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Generally Wikipedia-space pages aren't deleted, but marked as either historical or rejected. My preference is a third option, to rewrite it to eliminate the connotation that Notability is some kind of stand-in for relevance, but leave behind a page that tells editors what is and isn't the status quo on "relevance". I attempted that, but got reverted with a rather undeserved dose of bad faith. Separately, because relevance isn't a notability issue, the IncGuide doesn't belong on the page.

I'd be open to any kind of rewrite of the page to clear away the incorrect statements. I thought I did a decent job of that with this rewrite, but anyone else is welcome to try.--Father Goose (talk) 06:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll support your rewrite then. I don't think User:Edgarde actually gave a valid reason for reverting. Let's see what anyone else thinks. If there's a consensus for your rewrite or something like it we can just do it. Otherwise we should slap a disputed or rejected tag on it or some other warning that people should not follow it.Wikidemo (talk) 10:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

(In response to the latest revert, this time by Francis Schonken)Lmao. That's no good either. WP:Importance redirects to WP:Notability, which is not a stand-in for "importance", the redirect notwithstanding. And WP:Trivia doesn't have even a whit to do with "interestingness". Maybe we do have to send this to MfD then, to wrench this carcass-beating game out of our hands. There's little of value on this page in general, and no one seems to be willing to forge any actual consensus over what to do with it.--Father Goose 08:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Why not move the essay "Relevance of content" here? I don't think that a redirect to WP:N is helpful since notability and relevance are very different concepts. --Kevin Murray 17:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I support Francis Schonken's latest approach -- a redirect to WP:Notability. Although "relevance" and "notability" are not one and the same, this page never served an actual purpose anyway, so this at least puts it out of its misery.--Father Goose 02:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The terse proposal

I (Len Raymond (talk)) have:

• Removed the re-direct to Relevance of content. Note, User:UnitedStatesian put this redirect in place of the former redirect to Notability.
• I have placed a new proposal on the project page.
• I have notified the Village pump of this new proposal.

This proposal follows in the spirit of Ignore all rules -- takes a minimalist approach. Personally, I am more wedded to my own essay, Wikipedia:Relevance emerges as the proper thing for a Relevance guideline, but there is something very elegant and inspiring about a one statement guideline. —Len Raymond (talk) 21:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with this page, minus a "guideline" or even "proposed" header. This isn't a guideline; it's basically just a disambiguation page.--Father Goose (talk) 22:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not find that it is "basically just a disambiguation page", even though most of the lines have to do with disambiguation. The policy portion just happens to be short, not insignificant, and on a topic like "Relevance" one should expect a large body of disambiguation information. The policy portion has meat! It would establish two, significant actionable items.

1. a fact must be useful to the readers
2. a fact must be in the right article

These are no small things. What is not said is also significant, i.e.: details about implementing these two actionable items are intentionally left up to the editors and are expected to remain so. (unofficial details via essays allowed of course.) —Len Raymond (talk) 01:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No, this page currently does not establish neither (1) or (2)! It contains the definition of a term "relevance" and disambiguation. No meat. No suggestions, no rules, no guidelines. So, this is currently not a proposal of a policy nor guideline nor process - I'm changing misleading {{proposed}} tag until the issue is fixed. --Kubanczyk (talk) 12:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Terse proposal as a policy guideline

Kubanczyk, I like your edits (see above) except the change to "essay". I am reverting to "Proposal" status -- a proposal for a policy guideline. The "no meat" as an argument is not supported by the fact of WP:IAR. Nor can I find anything in guidelines that suggests support for your position. I am guided by Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Sources of Wikipedia policy, in particular:

Documenting actual good practices and seeking consensus that the documentation truly reflects them.

...continuing: Aren't (1) & (2) real rules in actual practice? And, is not their meaning obvious? Why should anything more be needed? As for "establishing" [the validity for] the rule; I agree such has not been done. I think you would agree that "establishing" needs to be done here, on the talk page. In that spirit:

1. a fact must be useful to the readers - A focused Google search finds around 1,000 hits of editors arguing "not useful". If you browse through the hits you find sound reasons for 'not being useful' -- reasons as varied and unique as one could imagine and therefore impossible to map out. The rule "must be useful" stands on its own.
2. a fact must be in the right article - the above arguments similarly apply.

Simply, I find that making one's argument compelling is what wins the day when arguing 'Relevance' -- the "meat" if you will. Unfortunately, "compelling" belongs in a style guideline, not here -- Len Raymond (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Incidently, this project has an incredibly long and complex history, starting about a year ago. I have been an intense part of that history (as WikiLen), too-intense to be objective. Perhaps one of the editors that monitor this page -- ideally one less involved -- could chime in here and summarize it for Kubanczyk, including it's status as an 'emerging' consensus. For the record, I see consensus as virtually established. This version has been submitted to the village pump, other versions argued to death (including mine, death here), and now a version with stability. -- Len Raymond (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I was misunderstood. What I was trying to say that a page stating "relevance is xxx..." is merely a definition, not a guideline. Guideline would say "Please, include only relevant information, which is xxx...". That's it. After it is corrected I would add: ah, this is a redundant page; WP:TOPIC says it all; redirect immediately to avoid WP:CREEP. --Kubanczyk (talk) 13:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal was rejected

Please read through the talk archives and arbitration. No consensus could be reached and it was rejected. The idea of a rejected proposal is that after a reasonable amount of time if consensus can't be reached we acknowledge the failure and move on, so we don't have perpetual circular discussions. See WP:Policy for the policy specifics. Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 02:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

After some reflection, maybe there is a better solution. I retagged this as an essay for now. A lot of work went into this process not long ago and I am very concerned about reopening the same can of worms. But the proposal seems to be in good faith and a slightly different tact than the last, although the idea of a subjective signpost was also rejected. If it is proposed to be a signpost, then it is not really a proposal for a policy or guideline. Let's talk a bit before reopening this as a proposal and leave it tagged as an essay for now. --Kevin Murray (talk) 02:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Kevin, thanks for chiming in... will talk things out while in essay status. I am not familiar with the "signpost" concept in Wikipedia lingo. Is this another term for disambiguation? -- Len Raymond (talk) 20:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

On background:

• This "Terse proposal" is unique -- has not been Proposed nor Rejected before, as a far as I know.
• It looks like what naturally emerges out of the graveyard of previous proposals. Also, as I argued above, it faithfully documents "actual good practices" as called for by Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines -- box quoted below.
• It was submitted to the Village pump on 19 April 2008 and has existed in proposal status until Kubanczyk raised the "disambiguation" concern on 4 June (see discussion above).

I share concerns about "reopening the same can of worms". I seek to advance the work, taking guidance from official policy:

Policy change comes from three sources:
1. Documenting actual good practices and seeking consensus that the documentation truly 
   reflects them.
2. Proposing a change in practice and seeking consensus for implementation of that change.
3. Declarations from Jimmy Wales, the Board, or the Developers, 
   particularly for copyright, legal issues, or server load.  

• Point (2) above seemed to be what all our past struggles and debates orbited around (i.e.: fix trivia problems, etc.) -- the "can of worms".
• Point (1) above is an approach we never really pursued in all our debates. It's this approach that I am exploring now with the terse proposal.

-- Len Raymond (talk) 20:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

For this page to be a guideline or policy, you would have to demonstrate that it has consensus. For it to be meaningful as a proposal, you have to be moving toward such consensus. The response to this page in its current form has been indifference, which makes it neither a guideline nor even an active proposal. By convention, inactive proposals do not retain the {{proposal}} tag, so do one the following:

• Get people discussing it to the point where it is an active proposal. You are not actually "advancing the work" if you place an opinion somewhere and then let it collect dust.
• Show that it has consensus as a guideline and tag it as such
• Switch from {{proposal}} to no tag, or {{essay}}, or {{failed}}.

This is not an active proposal and you have not taken steps to attract interest in it, let alone approval. If you can't upgrade it to {{guideline}} except on the basis of its importance to you, acknowledge that it is not an active proposal at this time.--Father Goose (talk) 00:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Points well taken, Father Goose. When I submitted this proposal to the Village pump I got zero response which surprised me. It seems the basic problem is, as you highlighted, "response to this page in its current form has been indifference". Do you have any interest in pursuing point (1) of the policy guideline, as I outlined above -- the 'documenting actual good practice' approach? -- Len Raymond (talk) 23:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

At one time I did have an interest in pursuing the "documenting actual good practice", although that was back when the trivia wars were at their height, and I think the community has become less stratified on the issue, making a "relevance" guideline less necessary. The "minimal" approach is fine, though what you've put on this page is so minimal it's little different from having no guidance on the issue at all. I think that's a lot of why you've gotten so little response -- you really haven't made a proposal at all, just a simple statement which doesn't really clarify or document anything.

My philosophy towards rules on Wikipedia has evolved to a stance not unlike Kevin's: damage control. Unless I'm confident a rule can't be used to damage Wikipedia, I'd rather not have a rule at all. If I see it as neither helping nor harming, again, it's better not to have it.--Father Goose (talk) 03:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4