Category talk:To do, by priority

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 CFD Discussion 2 Clarification request - "or less than x pages" 3 Question 4 Sorry—Logic for Priority Level is Plainly Wrong—Proposal for Disambiguation 5 Pledge 6 How is the Count calculated? 7 What about...

[edit] CFD Discussion

• This category was listed for deletion on March 29, 2005. No supporting consensus to delete so Keep. The following discussion took place and should not be modified.

• I have put up a Bot Request to fill the respective categories. However I remain in doubt that anyone (other than Laura) is using them. Radiant_* 15:22, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification request - "or less than x pages"

Hi, I'm wondering what this means. e.g. "2 for 200 to 500 references or less than 12 pages" - is that the length of the article in question in units of approximate display pages, or? Thanks. Btw yes, the todo categories are useful, thank you. ObsidianOrder 12:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it means the number of pages you get when you click the "What links here" link. You count the first page, then click "next 50" for the second page, and so on. It makes it a lot easer to count the number of references than counting each link, or multiplying the pages by 50, or anything like that :-) -EdGl 03:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

The levels of priority are somewhat confusing, in that some numbers belong in 2 categories. For example, is a page with exactly 5 refrences a priority 7 or a priority 8? Instead of saying 1-5 and 5-10, it should say either 1-4 and 5-10 or 1-5 and 6-10. -EdGl 03:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry—Logic for Priority Level is Plainly Wrong—Proposal for Disambiguation

The wording for the criteria for the levels of priority are not "somewhat confusing", as EdGl suggests but logically plainly wrong in that they do not unambiguously assign one and only one priority level to any given article. This is because the rules try to base the decision as to which priority level should be assigned to a particular article on two criteria — number of links to that article and number of pages in the article — and does not specify the relative precedence of these two criteria. I want to classify an article with 300 links to it and 4 pages of text — should I put it in priority level 3 ("... or less than 6 pages") or in level 2 ("200 to 500 references or ...").

Let me propose a rewording:

• 1 for articles with more than 500 references to that article or more than 12 pages of text
• 2 for articles with more than 200 references to it or more than 6 pages of text
• 3 for articles with more than 100 references to it or more than 3 pages of text
• 4 for articles with more than 50 references to it or more than 2 pages of text
• 5 for articles with more than 20 references to it or more than 1 page of text
• 6 for articles with more than 10 references to it
• 7 for articles with more than 5 references to it
• 8 for articles with more than 2 references to it
• 9 for articles with no more than 2 references to it

This would give an article with slightly more than one page of text a priority level of 5, even if it had not one reference to it; I am not sure if this would be a wise decision. Another possibility would be to replace the word or in all the rules by and, so a certain level of to-do-priority would only be given to articles that have at least a certain number of references to it and a certain number of pages of text.

Parameters can be changed (how many references and/or how many pages are required for priority level X?), but please see to it that the rules are unambiguous.

— Nol Aders 10:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Another important feature of my proposal above is that it stipulates lower as opposed to upper limits to the length of the articles to be classified in a particular priority level. (Upper limits do not make sense in this context since almost all, if not all, articles in Wikipedia satisfy the condition of having "less than 200 pages of text"! — the exceptions being some lengthy talk pages; it seems obvious to me that the length of those discussions does not necessarily reflect their extraordinary relevance :-) — Nol Aders 13:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pledge

For some reason, I feel drawn to put as many of these articles I can into their respective priority levels. (I think it is because I like order.) I will work on categorizing this list of articles until a bot is made for the job. If anyone would like to help me, sign here. Who knows, it might be fun.

1. EdGl 03:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I would not commit to regularly working on this category for one hour per week, say, but I commit to contributing links here whenever I stumble on a problem that I think needs more attention. (The accumulation of small efforts of many collaborating readers and writers is what has Wikipedia made what it is.) — Nol Aders 10:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How is the Count calculated?

Does the "what links here" count include all links or just those in the main article namespace? My query is related to the Beaconsfield mine collapse which has five pages of what links here links. Does this belong in category 2? Or a lower category, considering most of those are not in the main article namespace? PageantUpdater 01:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It should count only articles in the main article namespace, because the goal is to measure the article importance within the encyclopedia, not the popularity with editors. Pcarbonn 12:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What about...

...Pages with blank todo boxes? Or simply cleaned out todo boxes? Won't that simply put people looking for high-priority todo boxes back to square 1? And how about non-ariticle todo boxes (ie, userspace)? Can a way be created to mark them as unrated, permanently? --InShaneee 15:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)