Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong/Assessment

message: 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. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Beaten me to it :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 15:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor problem

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Where would you put the declared monuments? (see my comment above). olivier (talk) 09:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Redefining Importance level?