Category talk:Top-importance India articles
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Too many top importance articles
I think we've been overzealous in marking our favourite articles as "top-importance" defeating the purpose of assessment. While, all the articles here are certainly important, many of them do not fall under the criteria for a "top-importance" article. A thumbrule that we can follow is to keep most articles that end with "of India" and others that are timeless. Some examples are Constitution of India and Lok Sabha. The likes of 14th Lok Sabha and Aishwarya Rai are definitely important but are, in some sense, either not timeless or too narrow-scoped for this class. Hope I've conveyed what I had intended to. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 12:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- The source of the problem is many don't understand that importance parameter at a India project level. Aishwarya is a top importance article for the Indian cinema project. The solution to the problem is create seperate importance parameters for each workgroup. I will get to work on it next. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The solution may sound elegant, but there are deeper issues that raise concerns. Please read the arguments put forth here. In any case, a larger, in-depth discussion involving all concerned editors/contributors is necessary for fleshing things out (pros and cons) and coming to a broad and acceptable consensus. I think this is the proper path before changing the accepted status quo by implementing this new system of multiple-importance ratings by project. AppleJuggler 06:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Separately, I would like to add that this problem can be more efficiently addressed simply by requesting greater objectivity on the part of assessors, or having more than one assessor evaluate the article. An assessor can ask simple questions to guide him/her in evaluating the importance of the subject that is described in an article. One such question is this: "Would India or Indian Cinema, for example (depending on what the subject of the article is best known for) have experienced significant loss without this particular person/subject/item?". A question like this is a simple but fairly helpful coarse filter for separating (for example) an Amitabh Bachchan or a Satyajit Ray from say an Aishwarya Rai or a less established person yet to make a significant contribution to the Indian film industry. This helps one separate top or high or medium importance subjects (though this differentiation is too fine I think -- e.g., how do you separate top from high, or very high from high?). Put differently, one could ask oneself this question in relation to Indian Cinema: "Would Indian cinema be any less richer or be at a great loss without a Shilpa Shetty/<or insert any other film actor/director here>, or is this film figure replaceable with another extant film figure?" (some actors are replaceable others less so because they defined a generation of filmmaking by their approach or impact on acting -- say, Amitabh Bachchan or Sivaji Ganesan, for example). A simple approach like this helps induce an assessor to frame his judgement more objectively. AppleJuggler 06:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
