This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
WikiProject Hong Kong/Assessment page. |
|
![]() | Hong Kong Project‑class | |||||||||||
|
I would like to bring out a minor problem with regards to the template. When I added NA to the importance assessment, a red-link comes up. Comparing this with the Football template, it sure is inconsistent in nature. For a further example, please look into this page. NA-IMPORTANCE works nicely in the football template while NA-IMPORTANCE brings out a red-link on the left side of the Hong Kong template. I am not sure how to correct this and I need expert help here. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 15:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
After assessing more than thousand articles for the past two months, I feel that there's a need to redefine the baseline on determining the importance of an article to be Top, High, Mid, or Low. I noticed a lot of us just then tend to leave importance as <blank>, perhaps it's due to the current definition isn't clear enough... and we ended up leaving that field as blank?
I have done small editing by adding information to the current baseline on things that weren't defined clearly. I feel that it would be a good idea to discuss them here (before I attempt to make any big changes) if anyone has good suggestions. Tavatar ( talk) 17:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Here's the default percentage value given by Wikipedia on the pre-built assessment page, translate to roughly 4500 articles in WPHK (I know it doesn't quite add up to 100):
Low=55% = 2475
Mid=30% = 1350
High=15% = 675
Top=1% = 45
Tavatar (
talk)
18:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I updated a new version of the table (the format is inspired by other WikiProjects). Anyway, there were no significant changes to the old definitions. I only divided and expanded the details into groups. Feel free to voice your opinions or oppositions on the new layouts and details. Tavatar ( talk) 19:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
WikiProject Hong Kong/Assessment page. |
|
![]() | Hong Kong Project‑class | |||||||||||
|
I would like to bring out a minor problem with regards to the template. When I added NA to the importance assessment, a red-link comes up. Comparing this with the Football template, it sure is inconsistent in nature. For a further example, please look into this page. NA-IMPORTANCE works nicely in the football template while NA-IMPORTANCE brings out a red-link on the left side of the Hong Kong template. I am not sure how to correct this and I need expert help here. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 15:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
After assessing more than thousand articles for the past two months, I feel that there's a need to redefine the baseline on determining the importance of an article to be Top, High, Mid, or Low. I noticed a lot of us just then tend to leave importance as <blank>, perhaps it's due to the current definition isn't clear enough... and we ended up leaving that field as blank?
I have done small editing by adding information to the current baseline on things that weren't defined clearly. I feel that it would be a good idea to discuss them here (before I attempt to make any big changes) if anyone has good suggestions. Tavatar ( talk) 17:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Here's the default percentage value given by Wikipedia on the pre-built assessment page, translate to roughly 4500 articles in WPHK (I know it doesn't quite add up to 100):
Low=55% = 2475
Mid=30% = 1350
High=15% = 675
Top=1% = 45
Tavatar (
talk)
18:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I updated a new version of the table (the format is inspired by other WikiProjects). Anyway, there were no significant changes to the old definitions. I only divided and expanded the details into groups. Feel free to voice your opinions or oppositions on the new layouts and details. Tavatar ( talk) 19:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)