Misplaced Pages:Relevance: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 17:48, 22 July 2007 editEdgarde (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers19,109 editsm →Context: rephrase example← 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
(160 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."

			==See also==
	On Misplaced Pages, '''relevance''' is simply whether a fact is in the right article. This is determined by weighing the importance of the fact within the article '']'', against '']''. There are no general rules for establishing relevance in all cases, so often it is determined by ] on what is likely to be useful to readers.
			;Related guidelines
			* ]
			* ]

			;Related policies
	== Scope ==
			* ]
	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''.
			* ]

			;Closely related essays
	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 ].<!-- Needed to discourage editors from gaming scope to allow their fact. -->
			* ]

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

			* ]
	;Example
			* ]
	An article entitled ] should be about the global computer network, not about networking, software, or computers in general. The influence of faster personal computers on the Internet may be relevant this article;<!-- Phoney example. Find a real one. --> speed comparisons of different makes of personal computer are ''not'' relevant.
			* ]

	== Establishing relevance ==
	Facts that go into an article must provide ''definition'', ''detail'' or ''context''. Definition is the most essential to the article, context the most external. But all three may be relevant.

	=== Definition ===
	{{quote\|The moon is the ] that orbits the ]. There is only one.}}

	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), what it is ''notable'' for, and how it is ''distinguished'' from similar, related subjects. Such facts should be placed in the ], or in the first lines of the section to which they are most relevant.

	====Avoid dictionary-style definitions====
	], so dictionary-style definitions including ] or alternative meanings for the subject title are usually ''not'' appropriate, and should be moved to ]. In rare exceptions, the subject of the article will be a word itself, such as ] or ]. Otherwise, Misplaced Pages articles are about the ''subject'' of the article, not a parsing of the word or phrase used in the article's title.

	=== Detail ===
	{{quote\|The moon's equatorial circumference is 10,921 km.}}

	Every subject may have an potentially unlimited number of details. Generally what details are important enough to include will be determined by a ] of the article's editors, favoring information the articles' anticipated readers might want.

	Specific guidelines may be provided by a ] whose scope includes the article in question.<!-- What else should be listed here as a source of guidance? -->

	==== Biographical details ====
	Biographical subjects have special limitations. Some people are only notable for their connection to ] events. Since such persons are not ]s, details of their personal lives should be excluded. This overrides other rules on relevance — see ] for policy on articles about living individuals.

	=== Context ===
	{{quote\|Like any rotating celestial body, the moon's diameter is wider at its ] than through its poles, though only by less than a kilometer since the moon is fairly solid and rotating slowly. This type of ] is more extreme in rapidly spinning bodies, and can be seen clearly in images of the planet ], a rapidly spinning ] whose equatorial diameter is roughly 10 percent wider than the polar diameter.}}<!-- The moon's equatorial bulge is insubstantial, so this example is made-up. -->

	Context, while not intrinsic to the subject, may still provide an enhanced understanding of the subject. Context has a higher potential for irrelevance than either ''definition'' or ''details'', and can usually be outsourced by linking the relevant article.

	Context information is worth including if it does one of the following:
	* explains how the subject came to public attention (i.e., made it ]).
	* changes the subject's ''form'' or ''history'' (in particular, any of its ''fundamental'' or ''distinguishing'' traits).
	* changes how the public perceives the subject.
	The effect that a fact has had on the subject should be evident in the article.

	;Example
	In a mature article on the moon, the above example provides excessive, irrelevant context that does not merit repetition in articles for every celestial body. The relevant information might be simply this:
	{{quote\|] flattens the moon by less than a kilometer.}}<!-- Even this overstates it. It's just an example. -->
	... where context is outsourced to the article ], from which the reader can find details if they so choose.

	==== Connections between subjects ====
	In many cases, a fact that connects two subjects may be important to one of the subjects, but not the other.

	Non-notable mentions of a well known subject do not merit inclusion in that subject's article simply for the mention. This is commonly the case with creative works that make references to other subjects; see ] for details.

	== 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.

	=== Article length contraints ===
	Where a large amount of important material can be written on a subject, the bar for inclusion is raised for the article.

	;Example
	The Rwandan genocide is relevant to ], an enormous topic. Article length contraints limit the genocide to a single concise sentence in ''History of Africa''. However, it is accorded several paragraphs in ], and a comprehensive treatment under ]. In turn, several topics under ''Rwandan genocide'' have their own detailed articles.

	=== 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