| 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)
- There was an issue with a capital "I" being used in the template call rather than a lower case "i". I believe I have sorted this, all the best, Hiding Talk 15:34, 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)
- I see that you have rated several historical buildings, of local importance only, as "High". Isn't it to high? olivier ( talk) 06:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Per the current definition for High importance articles, there's a part that said "Reserved for articles relating to Hong Kong that are of international and/or local historical importance." I mean what else can be defined as local historical importance beside the government definition of Grade I, II, III buildings. Automatically, I see the Grade I, II, III translate to High, Mid, Low in our rating scale. Tavatar ( talk) 18:25, 22 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 remember being involved in some early discussions on the importance ratings that never finalised anything. I don't know if any subsequent discussions have taken place. To be honest, I would rather we just do away with the importance ratings, because it is highly subjective. But having said that, I think unless you are met with opposition, you should go ahead and rate the articles whatever you feel is right, if you are interested in doing so. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 14:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- I believe that Tavatar's work at grading articles is useful. At the very least it gives a sense of the importance of the topic, even if it is subjective. If people disagree on some points, they can change the grading or initiate a discussion, which in turn can generate interest in some potentially overlooked articles. olivier ( talk) 17:41, 29 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)
- Where would you put the declared monuments? (see my comment above). olivier ( talk) 09:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Under the current draft, I think it fits the description of History - High Importance: Major historical events, highly preserved structures and protected monuments, and summary of different time periods. I added the page you pointed out into the example as well. Tavatar ( talk) 04:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)