Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Equazcion (talk | contribs) at 00:08, 12 August 2007 (→this is a very rough draft: tweak). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This project was formerly at Misplaced Pages:Relevance, but was moved here due to a dispute over that page's history. Prior discussion of it can be found at Misplaced Pages talk:Relevance.

• Notes on prior proposal & discussion

The prior proposal was substantially rejected at the former location and restarted here. The bulk of the critical discussion was moved to the archive pages. In a nutshell the objections were: (1) that there is no need for a guideline on such an obvious issue or (2) if this issue is to be addressed the topic should be handled in an exisiting guideline. --Kevin Murray 17:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

"Substantially rejected" is an unsupported claim, but the above objections were indeed voiced, especially toward earlier drafts of the proposal.--Father Goose 21:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Rationale for this proposed guideline

Recently, several thousand articles were tagged with Template:Trivia. Disputes broke out at both Template talk:Trivia and Misplaced Pages talk:Avoid trivia sections in articles over language to the effect of "remove trivia when it's irrelevant" because Misplaced Pages has no existing guidance on the subject of "relevance". Without delineating common standards for "relevance", this battle is going to rage on indefinitely.

The page that exists at Misplaced Pages:Relevance is 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 the guidance Misplaced Pages has to offer on the subject of relevance.

This proposal is strictly aimed at laying out common ground on the subject of relevance. It takes no stance on whether any type of material belongs in Misplaced Pages -- it merely offers a baseline for whether material is relevant to a specific subject.

List items

As per the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Avoid trivia sections, should we include a description of what is relevant for list sections? I feel like the current description of relevance doesn't really allow for things like cultural references.

01:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the changes Dcoetzee and I just made to WP:TRIVIA might take care of that, provided they don't get reverted, but even then we might be able to preserve some of it. In this proposal, I tried to accommodate references-made-by-the-subject with "while the original subject will often have importance to the referring work..." The "impact" requirement for references to the subject is more discriminating: on Howard Hughes' page, The Aviator should stay, but does it really need to mention all those song lyrics?--Father Goose 02:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be "...have importance to the work being referred to"? "References-made-by-the-subject" means that the subject IS the referring work. Or I could just be confused, as this is some very abstract language. Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 03:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

If it's confusing I'll have to fix it. Let me see what I can do.--Father Goose 03:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion - choose a different example at the end of section 1.4 "Connection between subjects". Best would be one with no biographical implications - like an earthquake or an aeroplane or train or something. One that was tried before might work-

The Mona Lisa obviously influenced Duchamp's creative decision to construct the "ready-made" L H O O Q. But has there been any back-influence, from LHOOQ to impact upon the topic of the Mona Lisa, the original creative work? (An example from RELdraft 1) or, can a better example be found that does not preempt the following section header (2 Biographical details). Newbyguesses - Talk 00:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The ideal examples would be non-biographical, culturally-universal, and describe content that is likely to remain in (or be excluded from) the example article(s). What I'm really looking for is some kind of pop-culture event that unmistakably affected the subject, to demonstrate that "pop culture references" can be relevant, even though usually they aren't. I like the Ford examples because they nail the last two requirements. I'll keep my eyes open for an example that nails all of them.--Father Goose 07:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the reason pop-culture reference lists survive is because of the perceived importance of establishing as much notability for an article's subject as possible. Notability can be proved by establishing a subject's influence on popular culture, and references made to the subject in popular culture are proof of that influence. The more pop-culture references, the more influence can be claimed, the more notable the subject appears. This is something Misplaced Pages has fostered by placing importance on establishing notability, and it's not something people will give up easily. Editors have been conditioned to keep as much proof of notability in their articles as possible. Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 22:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of pop culture sections is a bit different: I'd say they're common because people like to add pop-culture references that made them aware of the subject to the article on the subject. That's notability of a certain sort, but not how WP:Notability construes it. And the more prominent the subject, the more pop-culture references will accrue, to the point where they can drown an otherwise-good article under dozens of really-not-notable references. World Trade Center in popular culture is a textbook example of this: imagine all those references in the WTC article itself -- absolutely unworkable. I personally don't see a problem with separate "pop culture" articles, as long as they are verifiable and don't from drift their topic, but that's a different issue.--Father Goose 05:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Examples (re Ford)

I think that the Ford example is a poor one, due to the fact that many biographies include a in pop culture section, or something to that effect. It would be acceptable for both Ford portrayals to be included there; although it is correct that only the Chevy Chase one might have any proper use within the article discussing his life.

A lot of the film or actor articles, however, contain numerous random facts about how X, Y, and Z worked together on something, and Z also worked with A, B, and C on another show. (A lot of this is IMDb-cruft anyway). Those facts are largely useless and tangential (with a few exceptions), and might make a better example - among many... Any case, good luck! Girolamo Savonarola 22:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Subjectivity

I think that the spirit of this proposal is very good, but it's still very subjective. How can importance be determined? I think it should be explicit that connective trivia should not be considered relevant without an independent source indicating that relevance. --Eyrian 15:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Anything that's not verifiable should be removed. If you're talking about something that appeared on a TV show or the like, that is verifiable.

I avoided using subjective terms when it came to specific instructions, and I deliberately avoided giving specific instructions about "what is important to the creative work" because I doubt we could draw up any general rules about that without getting it wrong. For instance, Family Guy makes a million weird references to everything, and an explanation of those references is potentially appropriate in an episode-specific article. But the fact that Fox Mulder drove a Dodge Stratus in the X-Files movie is clearly not important, subjective or no.

I did get specific about "must have an effect on the referenced subject", since that's a very prevalent type of trivia that warrants some guidance beyond "nuke it".

We want to avoid disallowing potentially appropriate things while trying to blast away minor references that anybody in their right mind would remove without any guidance. However, if you think you can come up with more specific wording that won't produce collateral damage, by all means, try.--Father Goose 17:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

"But the fact that Fox Mulder drove a Dodge Stratus in the X-Files movie is clearly not important" Hah! If only. No, all the time, I find users pressing for the importance of such references, claiming that they prove that the subject is important. Playing Devil's advocate for a moment, surely, its appearance in a popular film indicates that the Dodge Stratus is a common car in America? Again, looking over the various awful, awful trivia/IPC articles I have, it becomes clear that some people cling dearly to the most trivial of mentions, and that requiring explicit, cited indication of importance is the best way to go. --Eyrian 17:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Actually, I meant it wasn't important to Mulder or the X-Files. And you'd have to describe the effect that that specific appearance in the X-Files had on the Dodge Stratus. Perhaps you'd like to tighten the language of the proposal to prevent broader interpretations than that.

I wouldn't go so far as to say citations must be provided: WP:Verifiability is policy, WP:Verified is not. But if people make assertions of "what effect this had" that aren't verifiable, you can toss them, and if they don't make any assertion at all, you can still toss them. You did bring to my attention that mention of WP:V got dropped from the proposal at one point, so I've restored it. The current wording of this proposal has more teeth than I think you realize, but perhaps you'd like to add a few more. Go ahead.--Father Goose 20:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I actually really like the way that's worded now. I fully support this. --Eyrian 20:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The road to official sanction

What's the best way to move this along the road to becoming policy/guideline? What else needs to be done? --Eyrian 20:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that was a fast conversion. Welcome aboard!  ;-) The most important thing is to demonstrate that there's a consensus for having it as a guideline. I won't attempt to make it a "policy" -- it just isn't one. But that won't make it any less enforceable -- consensus is ultimately what drives authority.

Of the people who have commented on it so far, I count 6 explicit supporters, about 10 neutral/unspecifieds, a handful who didn't like earlier versions but haven't commented on the most recent ones, one opposer (Kevin Murray) who has never commented on the policy itself, and one editor (WikiLen) whose attitude towards it has been convoluted. He's been on vacation but will be back soon, and I'm not sure what he'll have to say about the current state of things.

I wouldn't mind hearing from other editors who contributed to the discussion of trivia over at WT:NOT, especially DGG. I consider his philosophy to be very similar to mine, so if we can get the two of you in agreement over this thing, I'd say we've struck a perfect middle ground.

If I don't hear any reasoned objections to it within the next couple of weeks, I'd be prepared to call it a guideline and see if that gets the cats yowling.--Father Goose 08:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

this is a very rough draft

I think this is a very rough draft, and the trivia portion is not the biggest problem. The oversimplification of almost every one of the specifics is the biggest problem I'm just going to outline my objections, in the hope that it will assist rewriting. I think that's all that can be expected at this stage. Policy like this takes many rounds and many weeks or months to get right.

My perception of the problem is that WP has much better methods for judging articles as a whole than for judging content; many articles in all subjects have major imbalances: erratic completion of the different aspects is general in all topics that are not greatly watched, OWNing is prevalent in those that are centered around topics of special interest, and continual change leading to homogenization and dilution of meaning in those that are subject to real conflict. I am not very optimistic what will be accomplished by proposals such as this, as long as we have no binding methods of enforcement--whatever may be said in statements like this, what is the procedures in case the article does not conform and those working on it refuse to change? WP:DR is a very blunt instrument, and I can frankly not recall any cases Ive observed or participated in of successful use to challenge OWN. (I no longer respond to such requests--it invariable leads to frustration or reversal of all the good that's been done). All this does is give principles to quote, but enforcement depends on getting up a group as strong as the opposition, and if that's being the method rules are not the main concern. I do see one possible approach--the Fringe and RS noticeboards seem of some value. I'd like to see one on NPOV.
1.0 "However, the depth of Misplaced Pages's coverage must be balanced against the readability of its articles" that's not the balance problem. The most detailed of articles can be made perfectly readable by careful writing and arrangement, enabling readers to focus on what's wanted.
1.1 "should match the article's title" I think that's meaningless. To use the example given, an article titled "internet" will talk in some degree about a great many different things, including networking ,software, and even computers in general. the concept is known as "background". "Articles on very general subjects should serve as an introduction to the entire subject, and avoid going into detail on topics for which more specific articles exist." this makes sense only for the largest subjects--if applied generally, it will lead to excessive fragmentation.
1.2 "Misplaced Pages articles should be written in summary style," that's simply not true--only the very longest and most general should. The ones on history of various countries are good examples of where its needed. I would discourage, not encourage, sub-articles except when badly needed. They tend to involve saying everything several times over, and lead to problems with coordination and sourcing. One article on a novel is enough, at least 95% of the time. Most articles on writers do need need articles on the separate novels also. Articles on diseases are not better in subarticles on cause and therapy, and I don't think that the personal and political lives of politicians can be usefully separated.
1.3 "The bulk of Misplaced Pages's content consists of: basic description"... and "interactions" Again, not so. the content consists of basic description., coverage of other appropriate details, generally in a chronological fashion for the articles that permit, and then interactions. " Groups of disparate facts, such as "Trivia" lists, lack such context, and should be avoided." this doesn't solve very much--the question soon becomes what count as disparate facts, and then the question arises of whether they will be worse or better integrated into the articles. The question avoided here is what degree of minor detail should be included--and that's the key one, because that's where people basically disagree. I think, for example, that every use of a character in later works is relevant to an understanding of the cultural significance of a character, and that WP should be exhaustive, for we are uniquely positioned to make this possible--wiki editing is the best technique for doing this in a coordinated way that has yet been invented. others disagree, and I suppose this will have to be explicitly compromised.
1.3.1 "This is often the case with creative works that involve other subjects: they may have importance to the creative work, but only very famous uses will have a measurable effect on the subjects themselves" I simply do not understand this. In one sense its a tautology: the very famous uses are the ones that have major effects on the subject. Chevy Chase's skits on Ford were cited--they would be important because they did have an effect. That justifies including them prominently in a separate section perhaps, but those of lesser importance also had (lesser) effects. If the purpose is to avoid collecting in an article all the fun that is made of individual presidents, it's misguided: WP should do exactly that. As Jimbo said, "we make the internet not suck"--we collect all the significant parts from the really trivial, and anything in national media is among the significant, while most individual blog postings are the 99% of the internet to be filtered out.
2. Biographical details is a reference to other articles, not all of which are really that well accepted. So there is not point commenting on that here. Personally, I think that details of a persons private life is a suitable background in all cases for bios of those involved in anything publicly notable. But that's another issue.

so I answer the initial question in this section, the way to proceed to make this policy is to start all over again and write something that solves the problems, not just the immediate agenda. I recommend adaptation of a phrase we use with respect to WP:FRINGE, "proportional weight" .DGG (talk) 10:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

1.0: Article depth should be balanced thusly, however it should be made clear that the remedy to "too much depth" in a sub-topic is to spin-off the section into a separate article, rather than leaving that depth out entirely. No matter how well-written an article is, the very-long ones are still difficult to navigate. That's why when an article reaches a certain length, editors are shown a warning message that suggests splitting it up.

1.1: If you explain the background of computers etc. in an article entitled "Internet", you'll have a very long article. The individual components that make up a subject don't need explanation in that subject's article, except in summary style. That's the point of inline links and main article links. When a component of a subject is mentioned, and the reader needs further explanation of it in order to understand the subject at hand, he or she clicks the link. If you explain computers in every article that has to do with computers, you're going to have a lot of redundant information floating around.

1.2: Saying that only the "very longest" articles should be written in summary style is just one person's opinion. There are clear guidelines already for the article length and other circumstances that require summary style/separate articles. That having been said I think it is a bit of an overkill to say that Misplaced Pages articles in general should be written in summary style. That really is only supposed to be for long articles, where the sub-topics go into enough depth to warrant a separate article. This is a quick fix in wording though, I may even take care of that when I'm done here.

1.3: This part gets hazy for me. What is an interaction with another subject? Even the basic description could be counted as that, since other subjects will need to be mentioned within it. What's a toaster? Well, basically it's a device that toasts bread. There we've already mentioned bread, another subject with which the primary subject interacts. So I'm just saying this "interactions" thing might need to be rethought, in terms of wording. I don't think there's any actual disagreement here -- it's just that describing it as "interactions with other subjects" is a bit ambiguous; It doesn't truly distinguish one type of content from another, and it's extremely open to interpretation. But as for Trivia -- "we are uniquely positioned to make this possible" -- this is again just one person's opinion. Check Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not and Misplaced Pages:Avoid trivia sections. Uniquely positioned or not, Misplaced Pages is just not meant for this.

1.3.1: "...collecting in an article all the fun that is made of individual presidents....WP should do exactly that." -- No, it shouldn't. Again, see the links above.

2.: Again this is another personal opinion that conflicts with set guidelines. Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 23:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)