Misplaced Pages

:Relevance: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 09:17, 16 July 2007 editDhaluza (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers12,520 edits →Content must be about the subject of the article: Make dealing with redundant content more general.← Previous edit Revision as of 21:28, 16 July 2007 edit undoFather Goose (talk | contribs)Administrators10,523 edits Implementing "disambiguation" page as proposed on talk page. Hopefully this will not have to remain here too long.Next edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
Two independent proposals are being suggested for '''Misplaced Pages:Relevance'''. They are:
{{Proposed|]<br />]}}


*]
{{Nutshell|Content should be about the subject of the article.}}
*]
{{policylist}}


Neither version is implicitly favored.
:''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 information on what articles are appropriate (relevant) for Misplaced Pages, see the official policy: ].''


The page that existed here prior to these proposals can be viewed .
This guideline gives information on relevancy '''for article content'''. Discerning the relevancy of content itself is what good editors do.<ref>Any attempt to legislate from on-high what "relevant" means for Misplaced Pages is an academic exercise, some assert, that editors cannot unify around. The policy-by-example, that good editors have already engendered, may be the limit of what can be "legislated".</ref> This leaves making the case for relevancy up to editors in ] and ].
# Advice on "guiding principles" to use and "pitfalls to avoid" when in ''edit disputes'' — ].
# Material to expand and illuminate one's ''thinking'' about relevancy — ].


]
], as a guideline, is given less weight than the three core policies: ], ], and ]. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Misplaced Pages articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three before using this guideline.
]

]
== Relevancy and edit disputes ==
]

:''This section is primarily intended as guidance for edit disputes on relevancy. See, ], below, for guidance on editing and relevancy.''

Any editing "rule" can be ignored if it keeps ''relevant'' material from getting into an article. This ] and assert relevancy is a . This guideline is more about maintaining this freedom than about legislating relevancy.

'''''Practical realities of "relevancy" in Misplaced Pages'''''
* There is no external "reliable source" to tell editors what is relevant.
* An editor's innate sensitivity to relevance is what is drives inclusion or deletion of material, not this guideline.
* Relevancy driven by agendas or emotions is to be avoided — see ], below.

The sensitive ear editors put to the task of relevancy humbles attempts to codify it — as it should. Misplaced Pages is successful because of talented and dedicated editors. Where questions of relevance are raised, these editors work together—sometimes with great difficulty—to achieve a consensus.

:''Related official policy: ]''

Ultimately, the relevance of material in any given Misplaced Pages article is gauged, not by some policy, but by the "good editors" who contribute to it; through ] and comments in ]. In the end, if a compelling argument cannot be made that specific material belongs in an article then other editors are free to remove it as "relevance not established". Most likely, the material is relevant to another article and every attempt should be made, by the editor removing it, to integrate it into that article.

=== Guiding principles ===
''This section elaborates on these guiding principles for relevancy:''
* Content must be about the subject of the article.
* A compelling argument can be made for its relevancy.
* The extent of an article's reach into minor details must be driven by what serves the readers.

<span id="A" /><span id="ABOUT" />
==== Content must be about the subject of the article ====
{{Shortcut|WP:REL#A|WP:REL#ABOUT}}

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. Some information falls outside the scope of Misplaced Pages's mission as an ''encyclopedia'', and cannot be the basis for an article in WP. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook or textbook, nor a travel guide. ] has further information.

Sometimes an article's content will evolve beyond its original subject. If the new content duplicates other, existing articles, the content should be merged into one of the articles, or broken out into a separate stand-alone article. However, if the article's subject continues to be cohesive (if broader), the article can be renamed (via the ]) and its lead edited to reflect its new subject. It is usually a good idea to propose such moves on the article's ] first, however.

<span id="C" /><span id="COMPEL" />

==== Compelling argument can be made for its relevancy ====
{{Shortcut|WP:REL#C|WP:REL#COMPEL}}

Even if information is ] and specific to an article's subject, its relevance must be demonstrated if challenged by another editor. Unfortunately, as noted in the official policy, ]:

:''It is difficult to specify exactly what constitutes a reasonable or rational position .''

At its heart, a fact is relevant for an article because one or more editors can persuade other editors of its relevance (if asked to do so).<ref>The importance of this cannot be underestimated: "a fact is relevant for an article because one or more editors can persuade other editors of its relevance." With "Relevance" there is no external source to clear the cloud and a written policy is too amorphous a thing to do the job — can't address even a small portion of every possible mis-understanding and interpretation of relevancy.</ref> This persuasion is essentially an art. However, a method of sorts has risen that many good editors find helpful. It is the ], a proactive method for reaching consensus — see the guideline: ]

Additionally, these offer related advice:
* ]
* ]

<span id="R" /><span id="REACH" />

==== Reach into minor details must be appropriate (serve the readers) ====
{{Shortcut|WP:REL#R|WP:REL#REACH}}
{{see|Misplaced Pages:Avoid trivia sections}}
:''Related essays: ] and ]

], and there is little limit to the amount of information that it can hold. However, information that is true and verifiable does not necessarily meet the threshold for relevance within a given article. The depth of Misplaced Pages's coverage must be balanced against the readability (and ]) of its articles. When editing an article in Misplaced Pages, it is often tempting to add as much information as possible to improve the quality of content in Misplaced Pages. While this is a laudable goal, adding information that is only tenuously connected to the subject does little to inform the reader about the subject.

Articles on very general subjects should be written in ] and only consider information relevant if it has a very strong connection to the subject. Articles on more specific subjects have a lower threshold for relevancy and can go into far greater detail. The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standard of the ]. A fact may be relevant but not notable. The circumference of the ] is not notable but, although a minor detail, it ''is relevant'' for the article on the Moon.

===== Biographical articles — a special case =====

{{see|Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons}}

Biographical articles are often both about the person and the impact they have on society, including spin-offs of their work.
* '''The person:''' The depth and amount of reliable biographical coverage the person has received is a good indication of what biographical details Misplaced Pages should include on that individual.
* '''Impact on society:''' The impact on society can be more about society or its own thing than about the person, however it is acceptable to describe that impact, in summary fashion, in the biography. Detailed descriptions of notable spin-offs/impacts should have their own article with a link to that article.

'''Important:''' ''Misplaced Pages articles that contain material about living people can affect their lives and the lives of their families, colleagues, and friends. Biographical material must therefore be written with sensitivity and a strict adherence to our content policies, and the subjects of our articles must be approached impartially and conscientiously. Editing of articles on biographical subjects has an official policy — listed above. Please refer to it.''

<span id="P" /><span id="PITFALL" />

=== Pitfalls to avoid ===
{{shortcut|WP:REL#P|WP:REL#PITFALL}}

Fortunately, relevancy is usually obvious.<ref>Codifying "obvious relevancy" runs the risk of raising nuances whose relevance editors then struggle over — increasing the over-all editing load instead of reducing it.</ref> There are pitfalls, however, that editors fall into where the obviousness test fails due to the weight of one's passions. This happens to virtually all editors. These are to be avoided:
# Do not put off-topic content into an article solely because its compelling nature argues it is relevant.
# Do not put content into an article on the reasoning that if it is not stored in Misplaced Pages it will be lost to the world.
# Do not put content into an article just because readers need to know about it.

<br>''A more detailed treatment:''

{| class="wikitable" width="90%"
!| Relevant confused with
!| Error editor might make
!| Comments
|-
|align="center"| ''Compelling'' || Is interesting so it must be relevant (even though off-topic). || Find the right article for the material if you think is of interest to readers.
|-
|align="center"| ''Endangered'' || If it is not stored in Misplaced Pages it will be lost to the world. || Must be material that is useful to readers. No point in saving data that will never be of public interest.
|-
|align="center"| ''Important'' || Relevant because readers need to know about it (even though only indirectly connected). || It must be about the topic of the article and must be important in the eyes of readers. (Moving to the appropriate article could fix this.)
|-
|}

== Relevancy and editing skill ==

: ''This section'' '''''teaches''''' ''about relevancy. It may also have value in edit disputes when it is difficult to establish'' "is about the subject of the article" ''or when an article's reach into details encounters difficulties familiar to Misplaced Pages such as "Trivia" and "In popular culture" lists. Issues in this section, although familiar to experienced editors, have not—nor are expected—to achieve consensus status in Misplaced Pages.<ref>Because relevance is such a large issue for Misplaced Pages—virtually every sentence in it must be relevant—most generalizations about "what good editors do" tend to be too amorphous to gain traction as a consensus.</ref>''

=== Direct relevance ===

Relevance can usually be discerned by answering one of the following three questions:

* What ''impact'' does this information have on the subject of the article?
* Is it a ''fundamental'' property?
* Is it a ''distinguishing'' trait?

'''''Impact'''''

One way to establish the relevance of a fact is to demonstrate how it has impacted the subject of the article. This impact can take many forms &mdash; 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'''''

Ordinary traits that are needed to provide a fundamental description of the article's subject are always relevant. These are facts which explain what the subject ''is'', what it ''does'' (or did), and what is ] about the subject, or topic, and should always appear 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.

=== Indirect relevance ===

Normally, material must be (directly) about the subject of the article. The situations below are examples of when that rule is broken. These exceptions do not have consensus as official policy.

==== Often accepted for establishing context ====

{{main|Misplaced Pages:Guide to writing better articles#Provide context for the reader}}

Without sufficient context, even some highly-relevant information can seem to have little importance to the subject of the article. This is especially true when disparate facts are grouped together, such as in a "Trivia" list. An introductory paragraph may help convey its significance.

==== Often accepted for later works that have influenced the original ====

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 are based on, or otherwise incorporate, 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. Books, movies, and other works (such as documentaries or biographies) that are specifically ''about'' a subject are often relevant to that subject, especially if the work has influenced public perception of the subject in some way.

==== Often accepted for almanac type lists ====
{{cquote2|Misplaced Pages is an editable encyclopedia (along with some topics that would typically be found in an almanac).|From Misplaced Pages help pages: ]}}

"Trivia" and "In popular culture" lists are the most common types of "almanac" lists, in Misplaced Pages. These are bullet point or numbered lists. To improve the formatting and organization of "Trivia" information, ], recommends moving Trivia material into other sections as prose, adding context where possible. Sometimes a new section (or a new, more tightly-focused list) can be created out of closely-related items. However, even when a given set of information is best organized via a structured list, an introductory paragraph may help convey its significance to the subject. Incidental connections between subjects (i.e., with no demonstrable impact on either) do not need to be listed anywhere on Misplaced Pages.

==== Generally, indirect relevance is not acceptable — examples ====

'''''Example 1'''''

Maria Emerald is one of 24 featured speakers in a motivational film. She is in the film as a ] expert. For this example, assume she is also an expert on ] — an expertise of hers not mentioned in the film. However, the film talks about both feng shui and vision boards. Which should the article on the film say?
# Maria Emerald, an expert on feng shui and vision boards, ...
# Maria Emerald, an expert on feng shui, ...
The correct answer is (2) and it has a simple reason: "film is not using her vision board expertise." Her expertise on vision boards only has an indirect relationship to the film.

'''''Example 2'''''

Using the hypothetical example above, could the article on the film have a section on fung shui?
* '''Yes,''' if feng shui is one of the topics addressed by the film and then, only to describe what the film says about feng shui.
* '''No,''' if the section is essentially a mini article on what fung shui is, outside of the film. Feng shui in the world only has an indirect relationship to the film. Describing it is not describing the film. The film and feng-shui-in-the-world are directly connected to the concept of "fung shui" — that's it. They are not directly connected to each other, hence relevance is indirect.

== Splitting off to new articles ==

=== Keeping article length reasonable ===
{{main|Misplaced Pages:Article size}}
Misplaced Pages articles should aim to provide an ''overview'' of their subject. Longer articles can offer a comprehensive overview, touching upon many facets of the subject. The longest of articles should be kept under 60 KB to preserve readability and focus; additional coverage can be provided via subarticles and links to related subjects.

=== Splitting lists into a new article ===

Sometimes, when an article contains a large section listing connections between its subject and others, such as in "In popular culture" and "Trivia" sections, an editor may choose to split that section off into a new article. The acceptance of such articles on Misplaced Pages is uncertain — see ].

=== Avoiding mini-articles in subsections ===

If a subtopic overshadows the main subject (or digresses from it), it belongs in a new article with a short summary of the subtopic and a link to the new article in the original article — see ] and ].

== See also ==
;Official policy
* ]
* ]
* ]

;Guidelines
* ]
* ]
* ]

;Essays:
* ] and ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]

== Notes ==
<references />

Revision as of 21:28, 16 July 2007

Two independent proposals are being suggested for Misplaced Pages:Relevance. They are:

Neither version is implicitly favored.

The page that existed here prior to these proposals can be viewed here.