Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Easier tagging via Monobook.js
2 Help needed
3 Discussion from the Tambayan
4 Top importance
5 Re: Boracay
6 Scope questions
7 Unassessed Importance
8 Assessment department worklist

[edit] Easier tagging via Monobook.js

Did you know that you can run your own JavaScripts to enhance your Wikipedia experience? There are tons of scripts available, such as adding a [0] tab at the top to edit just section 0 (so you can edit introductory paragraphs without loading the whole article into the edit box).

There is one very useful script for assessment tagging: The article assessment script.

Installation. Just copy the following code to your User:Example/Monobook.js:

// [[User:Outriggr/metadatatest.js]] <nowiki>
 importScript('User:Outriggr/metadatatest.js'); 
 assessmentMyTemplateCode = ["{{WPPhilippines|class=|importance=}}"];
 assessmentDefaultProject = "WPPhilippines";
// </nowiki>

The code is preloaded with the WPPhilippines template (you can add other WikiProjects if you want). Then save the page and do a browser force-reload to clear the cache (usually Shift-refresh or Ctrl-refresh).

Usage. Browse to any article page (not article talk page) and you will see drop down boxes at the top of the article. Select the desired importance level (or leave it unchanged) from the right drop-down box, then click on the desired quality value. This will bring you to the edit page of the article's talk page. Check the preview, ignore the "session is lost" warning, then save. Ta-da! You have successfully tagged an article just by using a mouse! :-)

--seav 23:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help needed

Anyone feel free to fix stuff. I'm absolutely clueless with this stuff though. I do believe that if we get this going, we could jump-start more wikiaction with the members of the tambayan who don't really have any specific interests in mind and just want to latch onto stuff that needs fixing. Shrumster 18:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion from the Tambayan

Cool, been tagging. I think we should have the higher-level importance classes stricter. It should follow a semi-curve where we have a lot of trivial low-level articles, an equal lot of mid-levels, a few high levels and a few top-levels. Shrumster 19:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Why more stricter? The quality scale is the same across all wikiprojects while the importance scale depends on a particular wiki-project. From my interpretation of your importance criteria, you're considering their importance in the point-of-view of the whole Wikipedia. There is definitely some curving, but I think it's a gentle exponential curve.

I estimate that there will eventually be about 50,000 notable Philippine-related articles. That includes everything of importance. Divide by 5, you get 10,000 articles of at least Mid-importance. Divide by 5, you get 2,000 articles of at least High-importance. Divide by 5 again, and you get 400-500 articles of Top importance.

Now think, If you were to choose 500 articles to provide a well-rounded look of the Philippines, what would those be? I think it would contain about 150 places, 200 people and organizations, 50 flora and fauna, and 100 abstract concepts (history, culture, language, etc). --seav 23:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, ok! I do think that some of the companies that are currently top-rated should be something like high at most. I'm thinking the top level should provide readers with the most-essential facts about the Philippines while the high level would include articles that are important within the current snapshot of reality (most of the companies, etc). i.e. stuff that are really big now but most probably will be forgotten in around a thousand years. Shrumster 05:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I agree that some of the "current" topics should not be Top-importance. I guess the top 10 corporations/conglomerates by asset deserves Top mention? And maybe institutions like Manila Bulletin, Philippine Daily Inquirer, The Philippine Star? And the top 10 universities? What about entertainers? I would argue that Dolphy is of Top importance, being an institution in the film and TV industry. As for Sharon, Vilma, and Nora, I'm not so sure yet. --seav 06:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, something along those lines. Not too sure about the entertainment industry though I prefer to keep myself at a hands-off level of participation when it comes to that. An illustrated glossary of turtle skull nomenclature I'm wondering if provinces should be top importance...I'm thinking more of high. Might be prone to bloat considering the number of provinces that country has, vs regions. Honestly, I'm not too sure regarding specific companies either. They may be big now, but might not be in historical time. I'm basing it on like, what would be the most essential things to know about a country...i.e., Romania/Wallachia circa 1500s or Venice during the Renaissance. Important figures would be heads of state (and even then, many are not as truly important as a few select ones) while I'm not too sure if any specific guilds are really that essential in the long-run. Shrumster 08:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess this will be better if it's discussed at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Assessment. --Howard the Duck 11:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Top importance

I just saw ABS-CBN as top importance, and I sort of doesn't agree. "Top importance" is "Subject is a must-have for a good encyclopedia." I believe an ABS-CBN article, or even a history of broadcasting in the Philippines can be omitted in a good encyclopedia. --Howard the Duck 16:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I think we need to downgrade some of the Top-level ones to High-level ones. Top level I think should be the stuff that anyone needing to know anything about the Philippines needs to know. Stuff like the country article, may be the major island groups, only the most-major cities, possibly the most influential presidents/politicians/heroes, stuff like that. Shrumster 19:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

In order words, articles that'll only appear on a paper encyclopedia. --Howard the Duck 04:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I really would want a consensus on this since I merely gave my own suggestions. But do you guys agree with my 500 - 2,000 - 10,000 articles figures? If you think that my size estimates for the various levels are correct, then it should be possible to list all 500 Top-importance articles. This list would be like the Wikipedia Core articles but for the Philippines. Once we have that, we can easily gauge the level of other articles based on the presence of similar-topic articles in the Top-level.

Also, I don't quite agree with the timelessness criterion. Importance of a topic is not merely a function of whether a topic or subject would be relevant a few, a hundred, or a thousand years from now. There are many factors to consider. Also remember that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so determining the importance of an article in the future is not our business.

I also do not think that the Top-importance articles should be primarily or almost populated by high culture topics. I think that some important pop culture topics deserve Top classification too. --seav 14:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Most of the time, those numbers should work out. However, most if not all topics about recent events could not "must-have for a good encyclopedia" since they can be easily omitted. However, the only local recent event that has an article that I could rate as "top-importance" would be the 2006 state of emergency or the Hello Garci scandal. Articles such as the Erasherheads, Maging Sino Ka Man and even the Philippine Basketball Association shouldn't be top, even high-importance, IMHO. --Howard the Duck 14:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, something like that. The Hello Garci scandal might be akin to the Watergate scandal which would mean that in a few decades, it should be part of a general history textbook. As for pop culture topics, yeah I think a few are definitely top-level importance articles...most probably the generation-defining ones like...hmm...opm or music of the Philippines/Cinema of the Philippines? I'm thinking more of the blanket-coverage ones rather than specialized ones like...Philippine game shows or individual movie/program/song articles. (Well, Lupang Hinirang is an exception for song, for obvious reasons. :P Shrumster 15:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The top- and high-importance articles should be like the general articles like Ethnic groups of the Philippines, Climate of the Philippines (yay red link), Politics of the Philippines, President of the Philippines (along with each president), even Pinoy rock. --Howard the Duck 15:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think, though, that Pinoy rock might be considered as a subtopic of, say, Music of the Philippines, so maybe the "parent" article should have more importance, although not as low as or lower than, say, the PBA article (for the PBA article, the "parent" would be Sports in the Philippines. --- Tito Pao 04:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

But remember that just because something is a subtopic of another does not automatically mean that the subtopic has a lower importance level than the parent topic. Music of the Philippines is a subtopic of Culture of the Philippines but I can argue that both are Top-importance. --seav 15:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

So how about creating that ~500-article list, so we can see if there are enough articles to populate that list. After all, such core topics like "Something of the Philippines" probably number less than 100. Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines/Assessment/Top-importance articles --seav 15:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, please note again that I'm estimating that there are possibly 50,000 Philippine-related articles that would muster Wikipedia notability. (Any objections?) Exponential curving seems just about right so it's a matter of which curve we choose:

Power	All	At least Mid	At least High	Only Top	Comment
x10	50,000	5,000	500	50	50 Top seems too few
x5	50,000	10,000	2,000	400	Seems right
x4	50,000	12,500	3,125	781	A little too many to be comfortable
x2	50,000	25,000	12,500	6,250	Far too many Top

--seav 15:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

500-1000 seems about right, depending on how many we end up with. 50k is a good estimate, and I'm willing to bet there are a lot more stuff we can squeeze by WP:N as long as we have good sources and have generally well-written articles. Articles on stuff like...Netopia, Zagu, Ortigas Avenue, the various not-so-popular mountains, rivers and lakes, etc. I wouldn't want to put the focus on the number of articles as much as possible though. Some of the more zealous Filipinos might start making stubs for everything instead of going slow but making more-than-just-a-stub articles with good sourcing. Shrumster 18:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm only reiterating the numbers because I intuitively think that if we become strict with the Top-level articles, we won't even fill up the 500 articles for that level. That's why we should try to experiment by listing those 500 or so articles so we can adjust our importance criteria strictness. See Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines/Assessment/Top-importance articles for a list I started. --seav 05:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

(resetting indent) I just started rating articles only now, so I'm still trying to get the hang of it. Anyway, I've tried giving the lowest possible ratings for the articles that are on my watchlist---so that I won't be discouraged by the number of articles on my watchlist (I have nearly 1000 articles), I began from the bottom, with articles that begin with the letter Z)---so if you think that my ratings were incorrect, please feel free to reassess each article. By the way, it looks like our current count will reach the 700 mark =D (In case you're curious, I'm currently at the letter O :) --- Tito Pao 04:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Boracay

So, top 500 right? The absolutely must-have for a paperbound PI edition. And Boracay is one of those? Its a tiny island thats rather dingy with a horrible infrastructure. It's importance is only in the way the government pushes it for tourism and that it, amazingly, got on a yahoo and AskMen top 10 list once upon a time. As far as the rest of the PI goes, its pretty decent. But compared to any other resort areas in the tropics, its quite a dump. The entire island still looses power. And this is a 'must-have'? Just asking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.5.75.10 (talk) 07:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Just because you don't think Boracay is all that interesting to you doesn't justify that the article is given a Low rating on the importance scale. Boracay is one of the top tourist destinations in the country and the fact that the Department of Tourism has dubbed it "the prime destination in the Philippines and it is positioned as a sun-beach and holiday destination" means that the island is important despite any misgivings you have about the crass commercialism that pervades the place. The fact that the government think it's important and that numerous travel websites have referenced it (e.g. Yahoo!) clearly shows that there is enough interest in the subject of the article to give it importance as well in Wikipedia. At the very least it should be at the High importance rating, but you marking it for the Low rating just shows your own personal opinion. --seav (talk) 11:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scope questions

What about questions of scope? How much is something Philippine-related for it to fall under the Tambayan's scope? Is Durian a Philippine-related article? Maybe it's supposed to be Kadayawan festival or Durian production in the Philippines instead. How about Coconut? How about ASEAN? I would argue that Asian Development Bank is Philippine-related since about half of its staff are Filipino being headquartered in Ortigas Center. Sabah is not part ofour scope, but Sabah dispute is. How about Spratly Islands? We need to create rough criterias about article inclusion. --seav 15:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well anything even remotely related can be under the scope. Just those that are really remotely related can be classified as "low-importance". --Howard the Duck 16:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. For the biological organismal articles, I'm sticking in all endemic species, native species that are not cosmopolitan in their distribution, and maybe introduced species that have had a serious ecological impact on the local ecosystems (read:tilapia) or introduced species that have an impact on local culture (kalabaw, maya, possibly cane toad). As for durian, there should be a section in the article (Durian in the Philippines) that, when expanded to a size large enough to be split off, can be whacked into the article. Coconut...maybe low-mid since it was used as an image on a coin or something like that. Shrumster 18:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the coconut is a major crop in the Philippines with whole plantations blanketing the Southern Luzon countryside. We also use practically every product that can be made from it. I'm wondering also about foreign organizations. Do we tag United Nations just because the Philippines is a member? (Its talk page would look silly if every country WikiProject stuck their banner there.) --seav 00:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Dunno, doesn't feel right as a cosmopolitan species kasi. Comparing to other WProjs, pineapple hasn't even been made part of WikiProject Hawaii, for example. I think the class thingy is more of the article's importance to the wikiproject itself and not to the subject of the wikiproject (the country). I mean, cellphones/shawarma/DotA are still pretty big in local culture these days but I don't think the wikiproject should encompass those topics. As opposing points of comparison, vodka is top-level for Wikiproject Russia while tequila isn't even under Wikiproject Mexico. Shrumster 03:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't rely on what other WikiProjects have or have not tagged as within their scope because it's possible they just haven't tagged it yet or they tagged it incorrectly. But I get your point about the importance being for the purposes of the WikiProject instead of importance to the WikiProject's subject. So Coconut, being too general, is not our concern but Coconut industry in the Philippines definitely is, right? So I guess United Nations is also not our concern. And that means that Howard the Duck's assertion that we tag anything remotely related is not the way to go. We should only tag something unlikely to be tagged by a lot of other country WikiProjects (bye-bye Coconut). If only a few other country WikiProjects will tag it, we can probably tag it, like ASEAN. --seav

Yep, list looks more-or-less good. ASEAN...yeah, probably should be tagged. We're a founding member, right? I can barely remember when there were just 5-7 of us in there. I'm trying to avoid Wikiproject bloat which is why I've been refraining from tagging wide-reaching articles like the cosmopolitan species ones. I mean, I know whale sharks are big in Sorsogon right now but if every country that the whale shark can be found were tagging its article with their wikiprojects...yari na. :P Actually, this whole discussion just opened up a slew of new encyclopedic articles (i.e. xxx in the Philippines) na wala pa pala (or just stub-sections within the parent articles themselves). Shrumster 12:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Tagged milkfish and mango as Top (National symbols should be top right?).--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, national symbols except for the flag/song/pledge should be high at most. The Philippines has too many "national xxx" anyway and they aren't really that necessary for a basic understanding of the country. Maybe a top-level one could be a list article like National symbols of the Philippines or something like that. That way, we could have specific sections on primarily the Philippine context of those articles which would otherwise only have the Philippines-link as a small blurb in their "In human culture" sections. Shrumster 03:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Judging by sheer number of endemic species, tagging them would be a nightmare (but still workable). BTW Mango and Milkfish tags were fixed--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Kaya yan. :) Actually, most of our endemics don't even have articles yet. Pero I guess that's better than just having stubs para nakaka-enganyo gawin. Shrumster 12:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

An annoying bot created various endemic species stubs. Other than bloating the fauna category and making the assessment a nightmare, it also stole the "glory" of creating the article yourself.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

As a non-assessment-related comment, didn't realize that our amphibs already had species pages. I'm creating a Category:Amphibians of the Philippines for them as they're bloating up the Category: Fauna of the Philippines right now. Shrumster 12:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unassessed Importance

Hi. I checked the list of articles with no importance category, and noticed most of them are either OPM albums (I dispatched those right quick and classified them Low), and LGUs from Masbate. How do we importance-classify LGUs again? Alternativity 06:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Ergh-hem. Following up my Question po... are there particular rules for Regions Provinces Cities Towns and Commercial centers unless they have some additional cause for interest (Boracay, for example?) Alternativity (talk) 05:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's my rule of thumb basing on the 500-top, 2000-high, 10000-mid article counts: all current regions, about a third of provinces, and selected cities are top; the rest of the provinces, several more cities (especially those created before 2000), and some towns (like Puerto Galera) are high, the rest of the cities and towns are mid; barangays are low. --seav (talk) 06:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Didn't we decide that the encyclopedicness (what a word) of Barangays is in question? So I suppose if we have an article on a barangay at all it would probably be there not as a barangay but as a notable place of its own and therefore outside the traditional rule of thumb? Barangay Ayala Alabang for example? (Just clarifying... not looking for an argument. Hehe.)Alternativity (talk) 08:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment department worklist

I made a script to collect a whole bunch of potentially unassessed Philippine-related articles. I did this by checking out which articles categorized under categories within 10 levels of Category:Philippines (ignoring the obviously non-Philippine-related categories like Category:World War II) are still unassessed. I got a total of about 6,800 still unassessed articles. Interestingly, I found out that there are about 9,100 possibly Philippine-related articles currently existing. (My estimate was about 5,000. Hehehe.) The worklist is transcluded below. Hopefully we can finish this worklist by November end. Enjoy tagging and assessing! --seav 06:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This is an index to all the currently potentially Philippine-related articles that are unassessed. The whole article list is broken down into batches of 100 articles.

If you're going to work on assessing a batch of articles, indicate that you're currently working on that batch by signing your name beside the link. If you're done with that batch, strike it out by surrounding the link with <s>...</s>. Please note that not all articles listed here are under the scope of the Tambayan Philippines. Please see the Scope section of the Assessment department page for details.

This index: view • talk • edit • Generated on Fri Nov 2 05:26:36 2007 (UTC) (6,804 articles)