Caveat lector: weakness found
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)
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)