![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It's been a while and the original importance criteria and examples which were originally set in 2006 probably need a bit of updating/clarification. It's probably best we start with what constitutes the Top importance articles, and after some agreement on those slowly work through each subsequent importance rating. As far as the general description I think what is written is fine.
The criteria used for rating article importance are not meant to be an absolute or canonical view of how significant the topic is. Rather, they attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). Thus, subjects with greater popular notability may be rated higher than topics which are arguably more "important" but which are of interest primarily to students of hagiography. Importance does not equate to quality; a featured article could rate 'mid' on importance. Note that general notability need not be from the perspective of editor demographics; generally notable topics should be rated similarly regardless of the country or region in which they hold said notability. Thus, topics which may seem obscure to a Western audience—but which are of high notability in other places—should still be highly rated. Rate international region/country-specific articles from the perspective of someone from that region.
Thanks for any feedback in advance. Once it's done we'll replace current table with a {{
Importance scheme}} (with the Top, High, Medium, Low, NA, and ??? fields populated) -
Optigan13 (
talk)
05:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Current language looks ok to me on the text.
Subject is a "core" or "key" topic for California, or is generally notable to people other than students of California. They define and determine the subject of the California WikiProject.
I think the below list should be comprehensive as to what should be. I've started with the links from main links of California, {{ California}} and some reorganization of the existing Category:Top-importance California articles.
Please take a look at it and let me know what you think. I'd like to keep the total number fairly low(it's 64 pages at the moment), otherwise top importance loses its usefulness. So, if you suggest additions please suggest some removals (to high category).
Right now for the examples I'd suggest maybe California Gold Rush, San Francisco, and Ronald Reagan - Optigan13 ( talk) 08:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Nixon is back to high. I had left California in the header along with the nav template and project template since it's an obvious top. Are you talking about splitting the pages out in terms of the list above, or in the description? The 1.0 assessment will split the lists out on their own. I'm fine if you want to add some form of notes either as ref tags or some form of parentheses comments if you want to do that. I took another look at High class and feel pretty safe that there isn't any more material to bump up into top. - Optigan13 ( talk) 22:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I know I said above that I was thinking of doing this by stage, but looking at Category:California it is probably easier to do this by sub-category, and deciding how to break them up by importance category, preferably by some numerical standard or something which is easily referenced. This was already discussed for settlements with High for > 100,000, Mid for > 25,000, and all else low. I've posted the wordings from the existing guidelines as well as the importance template's default wording. We can come back with examples once we've worked through the sub-categories. - Optigan13 ( talk) 06:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I like the existing wording for this one. - Optigan13 ( talk) 06:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Subject is only notable within the greater subject of California, and has achieved notability statewide, but not necessarily at a national level. - Optigan13 ( talk) 06:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Subject is not particularly notable or significant even within the field of California, and may have been included primarily to achieve comprehensive coverage of another topic. This includes topic of limited interest, including those at the city/county regional/local level. -
Optigan13 (
talk)
06:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I can't think of a numerical way to seperate Category:Buildings and structures in California into importance levels, but I think presence on a list might help, with some items bumped up to high. I'm thinking of Category:National Historic Landmarks in California (105 pages) for Mid-importance with all others being low. Specific bumps up would be for:
Any feedback on this would be appreciated. - Optigan13 ( talk) 06:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
(outdent)I've added the locations I noted above (Disneyland Resort was already High, so both pages are High at the moment). I've also pulled the intersection of the unknown importance category and 3 levels of the Buildings and structures of California, the results are located in one of my my sandbox. Category:Restaurants in California is in the structures category, but most of the pages are about chains, and not specific structures. I think they're find to just assess based on business guidelines when we get to those, otherwise low. Also, Category:Schools in California is in the structures category. I think we should ignore this until we get to the Education category. Both restaurants and Schools appear to be in for consistency among state categories, and there is some overlap in the categories so leaving them in overlapping categories makes sense. I also found a few pages that are high ( Monterey Bay Aquarium (Aquaria in)) , ( California Aqueduct (Aqueducts in)), and ( Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct (Aqueducts in)). Those three seem reasonable at high for me, but let me know. Also Prisons in California is currently Mid, but I'm thinking that should be High. I think we should also add all missions in Category:California missions to Mid Importance unless they get a bump up for some reason. I've already requested Category:California ranchos for Mid as part of a bot run. It's much easier to tag some of these based on being in a category instead of doing individual consideration for level on each article. - Optigan13 ( talk) 07:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) If they had an importance assessment it wouldn't have shown up it that list. The full building list was 8,809 articles with several getting in multiple times because of category overlap, and I didn't remove dupes. Below are all the "Stanford *" followed by several UC articles in that list. 165 University Ave, Palo Alto, California - Optigan13 ( talk) 21:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It's been a while and the original importance criteria and examples which were originally set in 2006 probably need a bit of updating/clarification. It's probably best we start with what constitutes the Top importance articles, and after some agreement on those slowly work through each subsequent importance rating. As far as the general description I think what is written is fine.
The criteria used for rating article importance are not meant to be an absolute or canonical view of how significant the topic is. Rather, they attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). Thus, subjects with greater popular notability may be rated higher than topics which are arguably more "important" but which are of interest primarily to students of hagiography. Importance does not equate to quality; a featured article could rate 'mid' on importance. Note that general notability need not be from the perspective of editor demographics; generally notable topics should be rated similarly regardless of the country or region in which they hold said notability. Thus, topics which may seem obscure to a Western audience—but which are of high notability in other places—should still be highly rated. Rate international region/country-specific articles from the perspective of someone from that region.
Thanks for any feedback in advance. Once it's done we'll replace current table with a {{
Importance scheme}} (with the Top, High, Medium, Low, NA, and ??? fields populated) -
Optigan13 (
talk)
05:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Current language looks ok to me on the text.
Subject is a "core" or "key" topic for California, or is generally notable to people other than students of California. They define and determine the subject of the California WikiProject.
I think the below list should be comprehensive as to what should be. I've started with the links from main links of California, {{ California}} and some reorganization of the existing Category:Top-importance California articles.
Please take a look at it and let me know what you think. I'd like to keep the total number fairly low(it's 64 pages at the moment), otherwise top importance loses its usefulness. So, if you suggest additions please suggest some removals (to high category).
Right now for the examples I'd suggest maybe California Gold Rush, San Francisco, and Ronald Reagan - Optigan13 ( talk) 08:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Nixon is back to high. I had left California in the header along with the nav template and project template since it's an obvious top. Are you talking about splitting the pages out in terms of the list above, or in the description? The 1.0 assessment will split the lists out on their own. I'm fine if you want to add some form of notes either as ref tags or some form of parentheses comments if you want to do that. I took another look at High class and feel pretty safe that there isn't any more material to bump up into top. - Optigan13 ( talk) 22:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I know I said above that I was thinking of doing this by stage, but looking at Category:California it is probably easier to do this by sub-category, and deciding how to break them up by importance category, preferably by some numerical standard or something which is easily referenced. This was already discussed for settlements with High for > 100,000, Mid for > 25,000, and all else low. I've posted the wordings from the existing guidelines as well as the importance template's default wording. We can come back with examples once we've worked through the sub-categories. - Optigan13 ( talk) 06:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I like the existing wording for this one. - Optigan13 ( talk) 06:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Subject is only notable within the greater subject of California, and has achieved notability statewide, but not necessarily at a national level. - Optigan13 ( talk) 06:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Subject is not particularly notable or significant even within the field of California, and may have been included primarily to achieve comprehensive coverage of another topic. This includes topic of limited interest, including those at the city/county regional/local level. -
Optigan13 (
talk)
06:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I can't think of a numerical way to seperate Category:Buildings and structures in California into importance levels, but I think presence on a list might help, with some items bumped up to high. I'm thinking of Category:National Historic Landmarks in California (105 pages) for Mid-importance with all others being low. Specific bumps up would be for:
Any feedback on this would be appreciated. - Optigan13 ( talk) 06:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
(outdent)I've added the locations I noted above (Disneyland Resort was already High, so both pages are High at the moment). I've also pulled the intersection of the unknown importance category and 3 levels of the Buildings and structures of California, the results are located in one of my my sandbox. Category:Restaurants in California is in the structures category, but most of the pages are about chains, and not specific structures. I think they're find to just assess based on business guidelines when we get to those, otherwise low. Also, Category:Schools in California is in the structures category. I think we should ignore this until we get to the Education category. Both restaurants and Schools appear to be in for consistency among state categories, and there is some overlap in the categories so leaving them in overlapping categories makes sense. I also found a few pages that are high ( Monterey Bay Aquarium (Aquaria in)) , ( California Aqueduct (Aqueducts in)), and ( Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct (Aqueducts in)). Those three seem reasonable at high for me, but let me know. Also Prisons in California is currently Mid, but I'm thinking that should be High. I think we should also add all missions in Category:California missions to Mid Importance unless they get a bump up for some reason. I've already requested Category:California ranchos for Mid as part of a bot run. It's much easier to tag some of these based on being in a category instead of doing individual consideration for level on each article. - Optigan13 ( talk) 07:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) If they had an importance assessment it wouldn't have shown up it that list. The full building list was 8,809 articles with several getting in multiple times because of category overlap, and I didn't remove dupes. Below are all the "Stanford *" followed by several UC articles in that list. 165 University Ave, Palo Alto, California - Optigan13 ( talk) 21:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)