Template talk:Importance Scheme
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Some issues
- [The first post in this topic was copied here from Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Importance Temp. since it is more relevant here.]
Hmm. I'm not too keen on this as a replacement for all WikiProject assessment tables of this sort. The Assessment Dept. I'm building for a particular WikiProject uses a slightly different scale (different in that the relative weights aren't so generic; the Top/High/Mid/Low sections all exist, and there aren't any additional ones.) This is even more so when it comes to the Class scale; we feel that what the Biography or Sports wikiprojects consider a Start vs. a Stub, or a B-class vs. a Start, does not reflect what our topical project would actually consider a proper Start or B-class within our articlespace; our requirements will be more stringent. Anyway, our Priority (not Importance; we borrowed Priority from WP:BIO because it sounds less judgemental) scale also uses examples (and more than one) from our own field of topics, since examples like "0.999..." and "Australia" are not very informative at all in our context (and in fact to me look more like the difference between Stub, Start, etc., at least with the examples given.) I think that Importance Scheme would be very valuable as a model or guide, but even to achieve that, the examples all need to be of about equal length and quality, so that "Low" is not confused with "Stub". Shouldn't be hard. There are LOADs of somewhat- down to just-barely-notable, but in-depth articles that have even achieved F.A. status (e.g. the Pokemon minor character that looks like a torotise-thing that was a front page F.A. last year). Great example of Low but F.A., even in a narrow sub-field like children's anime. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
