Misplaced Pages:Relevance: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 06:54, 21 July 2007 editNewbyguesses (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users7,860 edits as per discussion on talk-page, moving the updated version of this proposal to the project-page -NBG← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 18:46, 18 June 2024 edit undoEmunah00 (talk \| contribs)215 edits Further explanation needed for the "strength" of an information
(230 intermediate revisions by 59 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{short description\|essay on how much a material is related to an article}}
	{{Proposed\|]<br />]}}
			{{about\|article relevance\|image relevance\|MOS:Images#Pertinence and encyclopedic nature}}
	{{Nutshell\|Material in an article should be directly relevant to its subject.}}
			{{essay\|cat=Misplaced Pages essays about editing\|WP:REL\|WP:RELEVANCE\|WP:RELEVANT}}
			'''Relevance''' is a measurement of the degree to which material (fact, detail or opinion) relates to the topic of an article. Degree of relevance should be taken into consideration for most decisions on whether or not to include material. This is a goal statement intended to influence the application and evolution of policies, guidelines and editorial processes, not to restate current policies and guidelines. Material that is irrelevant or ] to an article's topic can unnecessarily ], making it difficult for a reader to remain focused, and can also give the material ].

			Directness of relevance is an important measure and consideration. A careful review of the actual statement(s) in the content is required to determine this. Keep in mind that in many cases (depending on the degree of expertise and objectivity of the source with respect to the statement) the "fact" is information about what the source's "take" or opinion is on the subject rather than information about the subject. For example, "Larry said that John is lazy" is not info about John, it is info about Larry's opinion and statement, even if Larry could sometimes be considered to be a source. Following is an approach to determine and name degrees of relevance and how to utilize the results:
	This guideline pertains to the '''relevance''' of content within articles. For guidelines regarding the relevance of articles or subjects as a whole, see ]. For guidance on the relevance of links to outside websites, see ]. For guidance on certain types of content in general, see ].
			*'''Relevance level "High"''' – The highest relevance is objective information directly about the topic of the article. "John Smith is a member of the XYZ organization" in the "John Smith" article is an example of this.
			*'''Relevance level "Medium"''' – Information that is "'''once removed'''" is less directly relevant, should receive a higher level of scrutiny and achieve higher levels in other areas (such as ], ] and strength{{Explain\|reason=What's the meaning of strength?\|date=2024-06-18}} and objectivity of the material and sourcing) before inclusion, but may still may be sufficiently relevant for inclusion. Including information about the XYZ organization in the John Smith article is a simple example of this. Another example is any substantially disputed characterization or opinion about the topic because it is info about somebody's opinion about John Smith rather than direct objective information about him. This includes situations where the opinion is expressed by a ].
			*'''Relevance level "Lower"''' – Information that is "'''twice removed'''" should usually not be included unless the other considerations described above are unusually strong. For example, in the above "John Smith" article, "Murderer Larry Jones was also a member of the XYZ organization."
			*'''Relevance level "Very low"''' – Information that is "'''three times removed'''" should not be included. For example, in the above "John Smith" article, "Murderer Larry Jones, also a member of the XYZ organization which John Smith belonged to, murdered 8 people."

		⚫	==See also==
	== Keep articles focused ==
			;Related guidelines
		⚫	* ]
			* ]

			;Related policies
	Although ], the depth of Misplaced Pages's coverage must be balanced against the readability of its articles. An article that is dense with information only tenuously connected to the subject does little to inform the reader about the subject.
			* ]
			* ]

			;Closely related essays
	Misplaced Pages articles should be written in ], providing an ''overview'' of their subject. This overview may touch upon several related topics or subtopics, but any details not directly relevant to the primary topic should be moved into other articles, linking to them if appropriate. If coverage of a subtopic grows to the point where it overshadows the main subject (or digresses too far from it), it may be appropriate to ] into its own article.
			* ]

			* ] – a style guideline that "sets out advice on... how to make an article clear, precise and ''relevant'' to the reader." (italics added)
	== The subject of an article ==
			* ]

			* ]
	The subject of an article should match the article's title. An article titled ] should be about the global computer network, not about networking, software, or computers in general. When several concepts share the same name, such as "]", ] pages or templates should be used. The ] of an article should further specify the subject through a concise description.
			* ]

	== ~~Establishing~~ relevance ==		* ]

	Ordinarily, material is relevant if it is simply "about the subject of the article". However, even when information is ] and specific to an article's subject, it may still fail to offer a broader understanding of the subject.

	When adding material to an article, consider the following questions:

	* What impact has this had on the subject of the article?
	* Is it a fundamental property?
	* Is it a distinguishing trait?

	Try to phrase the material in a way that answers one of these questions. If needed, provide additional context; even some highly-relevant information can seem irrelevant when it is not clear how it has affected the subject. This is especially true when disparate facts are grouped together, such as in "Trivia" lists, which ].

	=== Impact ===

	Always explain the effect that a fact has had on the subject. This impact can take many forms — including, but not limited to:

	* Causing the subject to come to public attention (i.e., increasing its ]).
	* Changing the subject's ''form'' or ''history'' (in particular, any of its ''fundamental'' or ''distinguishing'' traits).
	* Changing how the public perceives the subject.

	=== Fundamental information ===

	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. Such facts should be placed in the lead paragraphs (or in an ]), or in the first lines of the section to which they are most relevant.

	=== Distinguishing traits ===

	Some traits are not necessarily part of a basic description of the subject, but serve to distinguish it from other, similar subjects. These traits should be unusual for that type of subject, along the lines of "first", "most common", "one of the few", or similar distinctive claims.

	== Connections between subjects ==

	In many cases, a fact that connects two subjects may be important to one of the subjects, but not the other. This is commonly the case with creative works that make use of other subjects: while the original subject often has importance to the referring work, only very famous references will register an impact on the original subject. Incidental connections between subjects — with no demonstrable impact on either — do not need to be documented anywhere on Misplaced Pages.

	Sometimes, when an article contains a large section listing connections between its subject and others, an editor may choose to split that section off into a new article. The acceptance of such articles on Misplaced Pages is uncertain; see ].

	== Relevance of biographical details ==

	Biographical subjects warrant special attention. Some people are famous due to their connection to ] events, without having any fame beyond the event. As such, they are not ]s, and details of their personal lives may be relevant to them as ''individuals'', but not to what has made them of encyclopedic interest. The amount of ] coverage of personal details an individual has received is a good indication of what Misplaced Pages should include on that individual. ] specifies additional limitations that should be followed when writing about living indviduals.

⚫	== See also ==

			Related essays
	* ]		* ]
	* ]		* ]
	* ]		* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			{{Relevance and scope}}

	]		]
			]
	]
	]
⚫	]

Latest revision as of 18:46, 18 June 2024

essay on how much a material is related to an article This page is about article relevance. For image relevance, see MOS:Images § Pertinence and encyclopedic nature. Essay on editing Misplaced Pages

This is an essay.
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Misplaced Pages contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Misplaced Pages's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

Shortcuts

Relevance is a measurement of the degree to which material (fact, detail or opinion) relates to the topic of an article. Degree of relevance should be taken into consideration for most decisions on whether or not to include material. This is a goal statement intended to influence the application and evolution of policies, guidelines and editorial processes, not to restate current policies and guidelines. Material that is irrelevant or out of scope to an article's topic can unnecessarily bloat an article, making it difficult for a reader to remain focused, and can also give the material undue weight.

Directness of relevance is an important measure and consideration. A careful review of the actual statement(s) in the content is required to determine this. Keep in mind that in many cases (depending on the degree of expertise and objectivity of the source with respect to the statement) the "fact" is information about what the source's "take" or opinion is on the subject rather than information about the subject. For example, "Larry said that John is lazy" is not info about John, it is info about Larry's opinion and statement, even if Larry could sometimes be considered to be a source. Following is an approach to determine and name degrees of relevance and how to utilize the results:

Relevance level "High" – The highest relevance is objective information directly about the topic of the article. "John Smith is a member of the XYZ organization" in the "John Smith" article is an example of this.
Relevance level "Medium" – Information that is "once removed" is less directly relevant, should receive a higher level of scrutiny and achieve higher levels in other areas (such as neutrality, weight and strength and objectivity of the material and sourcing) before inclusion, but may still may be sufficiently relevant for inclusion. Including information about the XYZ organization in the John Smith article is a simple example of this. Another example is any substantially disputed characterization or opinion about the topic because it is info about somebody's opinion about John Smith rather than direct objective information about him. This includes situations where the opinion is expressed by a reliable source.
Relevance level "Lower" – Information that is "twice removed" should usually not be included unless the other considerations described above are unusually strong. For example, in the above "John Smith" article, "Murderer Larry Jones was also a member of the XYZ organization."
Relevance level "Very low" – Information that is "three times removed" should not be included. For example, in the above "John Smith" article, "Murderer Larry Jones, also a member of the XYZ organization which John Smith belonged to, murdered 8 people."

v t e Relevance and scope
Policies and guidelines	What Misplaced Pages is not Notability Image relevance WP:CONTEXT (linking) WP:ONUS (verifiability does not guarantee inclusion) WP:DETAIL (levels of detail) WP:CONSPLIT (content split) WP:LISTCRITERIA (list selection criteria)
Essays	Scope Relevance WP:IRRELEVANT (content removal) WP:TOPIC (stay on topic) Relevance of content Out of scope Relevance emerges What claims of relevance are false Germane Indirect relevance is sometimes OK Notability is not relevance or reliability Exclusion Coatrack articles How to apply WP:NOR's "Directly related" principle Meaningful examples in pop culture Inclusion Content removal
See also	Template:Handling miscellanea Category:Misplaced Pages essays about notability

Latest revision as of 18:46, 18 June 2024

See also