Search results
There is a page named "Wikipedia talk:Relevance of content/Archive 1" on Wikipedia
- 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...143 KB (21,619 words) - 17:39, 28 May 2008
- requiring relevance as a measure of reliable sources (Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Crucial aspects of reliability). Cheers! Vassyana 18:27, 1 September...32 KB (4,939 words) - 11:31, 14 June 2015
- particularly: What is trivia? – this has a really quick standard for relevance Types of trivia items – this specifically details a few common circumstances...29 KB (4,567 words) - 17:02, 21 March 2022
- issue to Wikipedia talk:Relevance of content (I did once before, at Wikipedia talk:Relevance of content/Archive 1#Relevance of lists, but It Was Not Being...8 KB (1,194 words) - 05:39, 3 September 2007
- Archives: Proposal 1: /Archive 1 Essay 1: /Archive 2 Proposal 2: /Archive 3 Back in 2008 when this proposal was rejected for a first time, I decided that...2 KB (310 words) - 08:42, 26 May 2023
- fair amount of work. I have made good progress this week, though, and I'd like to offer a preview of the work at User:Father Goose/Relevance. Keep in mind...91 KB (14,367 words) - 01:18, 1 August 2007
- After years of thought, and observation at contentious articles, I believe relevance is the most important missing content guideline. For the last couple...6 KB (850 words) - 17:30, 20 February 2022
- Main article: Wikipedia:Relevance ] — the last version for the focus of this talk was REL4.2 A guideline is any page that is: (1) actionable (i.e. it recommends...25 KB (3,894 words) - 00:13, 15 August 2007
- what to do with it.--Father Goose 08:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC) Why not move the essay "Relevance of content" here? I don't think that a redirect to WP:N...79 KB (12,121 words) - 17:41, 18 May 2021
- Wikipedia talk:Handling trivia#Proposal to develop a content guideline on encyclopedic relevance. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)...1 KB (32 words) - 11:31, 14 June 2015
- retrieved from Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive#Wikipedia:Content forking 16:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC): This is listed as just an essay and it's...251 KB (37,358 words) - 04:41, 27 October 2023
- relevant content, and prohibit irrelevant content. There may be room to grow (especially in the oddly controversial field of Establishing relevance). / edg...54 KB (8,193 words) - 21:28, 14 October 2016
- has absolutely no relevance to Wikipedia issues, because it does not deal with republication of copyrighted work under a claim of fair use. Monicasdude...165 KB (26,805 words) - 18:36, 3 March 2023
- transclusion of a list such as a navbox to be content forking. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 15:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC) It seems to me that the only relevance for...55 KB (7,362 words) - 15:19, 4 May 2024
- to content, whereas ownership can apply to user pages? Is that what you are thinking?174.3.121.27 (talk) 03:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Support idea of move...262 KB (38,657 words) - 22:40, 13 July 2023
- license content, but the use of unlicensed content should be further tightened by making it replaceable under NFCC#1 by restricted license content where...437 KB (65,629 words) - 14:48, 22 January 2024
- Wikipedia talk:Handling trivia (section Proposal to develop a content guideline on encyclopedic relevance){ NAC: There is rough consensus that a content guideline on encyclopedic relevance should be developed. There was no specific proposal as to what it should...15 KB (2,133 words) - 06:47, 17 March 2022
- created some articles of dubious relevance: Sarah Marple-Cantrell, Joseph D'Apice, Suneetha Jayaseelan. Kingturtle 02:29 May 1, 2003 (UTC) I deleted those...89 KB (14,877 words) - 19:54, 28 February 2023
- alternative, which is, 1) the very thing being contested and 2) in my personal opinion, would be a lie given the amount of content on the Commons "It's...255 KB (40,228 words) - 11:22, 21 April 2023
- sector] to mean y". Witty Lama 07:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Secondly I have a number of issues with the content itself: 1) Featured article: Why are we telling...159 KB (24,531 words) - 22:30, 5 May 2022
- harder. One of my goals is to keep the English Wikisource from being entangled in the rule of the shorter term. It has no legal relevance for the US,
- which has no date relevance (but is pithy, interesting and/or appropriate), I'm not sure how the "voting public" (which seems to consist of about 4-5 people)
- laws of Florida, USA, as such it MUST obied by Florida and USA Law), it consists in collection of free content books licensed under the terms of the GNU