Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong/Assessment

Minor problem

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. --Siva1979^{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)

Beaten me to it :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 15:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Redefining Importance level?

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)

I see. So what about moving the scale one bit like : Declared, Grade I, II, III translating to High, Mid, Low, Low ? olivier (talk) 17:41, 29 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)