Misplaced Pages:Relevance: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 10:32, 22 July 2007 editEdgarde (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers19,109 editsm →Keep articles focused: ft and does little← 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
(192 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\|]}}
			{{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."

	== ~~Scope~~ ==		==See also==
			;Related guidelines
	The article title usually defines a ''scope'' for the article's content. In other words, facts added to an article should be ''about the subject of the article''.
		⚫	* ]
			* ]

			;Related policies
	The ] may further specify the subject scope through a concise description. Avoid making an ''explicit'' statement of scope, unless it is needed as part of a ].
			* ]
			* ]

			;Closely related essays
	Information added to articles on very general subjects should address the entire subject, rather than meandering into related topics for which more specific articles exist (or should exist). Articles on very specific subjects will provide room for far greater detail.
			* ]

			* ] – a style guideline that "sets out advice on... how to make an article clear, precise and ''relevant'' to the reader." (italics added)
	;Example
			* ]
	An article entitled ] should be about the global computer network, not about networking, software, or computers in general.
			* ]

			* ]
	== Keep articles focused ==
			* ]

	], Misplaced Pages has unlimited capacity, but 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 is miserable to read, and does little to inform the reader about the subject.

	=== Summary style ===
	{{details\|Misplaced Pages:Summary style\|summary style}}
	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.

	In this situation, the main article provides a concise overview of the subject. Where it touches on related topics or subtopics, details not directly relevant to the overall topic are expanded upon in linked articles.

	== 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