Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-08-16 Relevance of content

Temporary arhive if logistics discussion

Withdrawal of first moderator
Hi there! Is everyone okay if I, GrooveDog, take this case? This will be one of my first cases to mediate.


 * I'm fine with that. Thanks for taking the case.--Father Goose 16:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You have less then 50 edits in the Wikipedia Talk namespace and have been editing on Wikipedia for less than 4 months. It would seem you lack the experience for mediating a Policy issue. Do you have mediation experience outside of Wikipedia? —WikiLen 17:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I note Mediation Cabal has a mentoring system (called "Buddy system"). If you were to pick a mentor to assist you I would be fine with you as our mediator. —WikiLen 19:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't see this mediator as having the experience needed for determining a potential policy issue. I think that we need an experienced mediator; this is too complex for the first job.  Otherwise I would have to decline to participate. --Kevin Murray 17:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Very well. GrooveDog, may I ask that you return this case to "needing mediator" status?--Father Goose 17:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Acceptance of moderator

 * Alright, now about I try mediating this case? I've done a few before, but I'll ask for approval since you've rejected one already. Wizardman  20:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I accept WM. Thanks for taking the time. --Kevin Murray 21:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I also accept WM, thanks. —WikiLen 00:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I am glad to accept mediation by WM, thanks. Newbyguesses - Talk 03:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And I as well. Thanks, Wizardman.--Father Goose 04:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * and I, certainly DGG (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright then, looks like everyone's accepted, so we can begin. Wizardman  14:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

other parties
Other parties are involved as well. I for example also think it has been rejected, and am willing to be added to this mediation. DGG (talk) 04:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you withdrawing from the discussion of the proposal? Your input was, and continues to be, valued.--Father Goose 05:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC) -- just a little slow to respond this weekend. :)DGG (talk) 21:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I was asking if you were withdrawing from discussing the content of the proposal itself, in favor of calling it "rejected" and walking away. Your input had been quite constructive.--Father Goose 22:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing proposal, seeking more participants

 * FYI: Moved from the Village Pump archives — soon to be deleted from there. —WikiLen 00:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Please take a look at Relevance of content and offer what comments you can.--Father Goose 08:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I like what I see so far. Nothing to add at this point but I'll wait for others to chime in. Timneu22 11:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. There's a bit of an edit war going on over it, so it may take a while before the discussion becomes intelligible again.--Father Goose 07:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a proposal for a new policy/guideline inspired by problems at Trivia. It was originally proposed as "Relevance" and reverted there by myself and others as "not needed". This version is a complete re-write, much better, and deserving of a re-look in my opinion as a new proposal. However, the more fundamental issue of whether or not a policy is needed has not been resolved. —WikiLen 16:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Is a Relevance policy needed?

 * Or is this just rule creep?

Consensus has proved very difficult to reach on "not needed" and is sorely needed. In general, the argument against any such policy is that relevance is determined both through the give-and-take between editors and through the constraints applied by all the other rules. As a consequence, when one tries to write a Relevance guideline it either: states the obvious, states what is already a rule somewhere else, states what belongs as a rule somewhere else, or is so vague a Mack truck could drive through. Although I prefer "not needed", I would much prefer putting the "not needed" issue to rest either way. —WikiLen 16:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that many hours of hard work have brought about the best that can be achieved; however, it is still not sufficient to remove subjectivity from the decision of what should be included in articles. (a) I don't think that it is practical to try to legislate a sufficient definition of what is relevant, and (b) I don't think that what has been achieved outweighs the negative aspects of further rule creep?.  --Kevin Murray 17:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

If yes, is "Relevance of content" the one?

 * Or is there some minimalist approach that would work? (Only approach not considered yet.)

All editors working on this are focused on what to have at Relevance. The current and historical work: - (WikiLen)
 * 1) Relevance of content — This proposal.
 * 2) Relevance emerges — Somewhat of a compromise between positions of "Relevance of content" and "no policy needed." I originated this one and got persuaded it belongs as an essay, which is what it is now and what I expect it to remain as. Furthermore some ideas in it migrated to this new proposal, "Relevance of content."
 * 3) Relevance - This is not a policy or essay. It exists as a place holder and is called the "umbrella" version and has obvious errors. If the consensus is "no policy needed" then this version would presumably get revised to reflect that consensus.

Currently, a bizarre compromise is in effect: links to "Relevance" go to Relevance and shortcuts to "Relevance", such as WP:RELEVANCE redirect to Relevance of content. There must be a way to untangle this zoo of issues... editors please help, especially those with policy experience! —WikiLen 16:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed redirect at WP:RELEVANCE to point tot he page which has been established for almost 2 years at WP:Relevance. Will add link at latter to the proposed Relevance of content. --Kevin Murray 19:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That's fair enough. However, the redirect WP:REL was created at the same time as the proposal (as was WP:RELEVANCE), and what few links to WP:REL there are specifically mention the proposal, so I'm going to retain WP:REL as the shortcut to the proposal (but not WP:RELEVANCE).  I'll add a disambiguation header to the proposal to mention Relevance and change the link you added to Relevance to a standard disambiguation format as well.--Father Goose 00:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)