Wikipedia talk:Insignificant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Essays
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
 Low  This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.

Caveat lector: weakness found[edit]

If this essay is supposed to be about the contents of articles, then notability

These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles.

does not apply. CpiralCpiral 21:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps guidelines have evolved since this essay was created, but User:Cpiral is correct. The content of articles is judged by WP:Notability#Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. – S. Rich (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree that Notability does not apply to article contentOnBeyondZebraxTALK 22:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

A similar topic is red links. One kind is collaboratively certified Notable, the other is not. — CpiralCpiral 09:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Content correction[edit]

Here is an attempt to correct the content of the project page:

  • What is important is N and V
  • What applies to the debate is N and V
  • What applies is V

No, No, and No.

Notability is not applicable per the previous exchange.

Verifiability is not applicable either. For example, the narrative aspects of a particular article -- its style, plot, or size issues -- brought up as valid article-content inclusion arguments, don't need Verification.

There is a See Also section. Can we just add this talk page to it? :-)

Two attempted corrections seem inadequate.

Delete. Does "insignificant" ever apply (when two editors argue on a talk page)? If it does, then the content of this project page is uncorrectable because it contains no specific application; rather it's generalized verbiage about "the point" of all talk page arguments concerning inclusion. Reaching out far: can the correction be to add a category of applicable instances (where "insignificant" doesn't apply)? The application "Insignificant" neither applies as a general rule nor directs narrative aspects; Yet "insignificant" is valid in article-content inclusion arguments around the many mathematical articles whose style tends toward minimalism.

Say some article, that has developed in significant ways, hears a proposal that is an inclusion argument. The project page here says it won't be able to have as "an important point" the argument "insignificant". A developed article has many stylistic aspects, but some are subtle, and thus difficult to explicate, so require defensive watchers. I think this essay oversteps the effort that, with all the other See also links, tries to address a common problem of preserving a collaborative subtlety.

Keep if it can be made to read like a rule meant to try to conserve the developed subtle style that very tiny changes derail. I like the image and part of the caption, but further clarifications would be needed to realign the content with that image: something (Earth) is insignificant, yet zero of 'em just won't do. — CpiralCpiral 09:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)