Talk:Singaporean response to Hurricane Katrina

message: It relates to Katrina so is part of WPTC (if loosely). The low-importance is in that context, see the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria#Importance of topic - "An article judged to be "Top-Class" in one context may be only "Mid-Class" in another."--Nilfanion (talk) 12:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the infor, but the process is still not transparent. Rating is a subjective judgement, even within the Project. The user who made the rating should be named in the above template; or a link should be provided to where the specific discussion took place. Suppose I want to give this (or another) article a high-importance tag, in conflict with a previous tag, what is the procedure to resolve this? --Vsion 14:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The wikiproject process is the decision of one editor, but if there was a dispute we would discuss it and decide; like on Hurricane Linda (1997). You can find out who assigned the class from the page history (its me). There was an discussion on the wikiprojects talk page on importance ratings, where we decided that Katrina as a highly damaging storm is High-importance; I've made the more significant subarticles like International response to Hurricane Katrina a Mid-importance, and as this is a subarticle of that, that is why I chose Low for this article. Perhaps the hurricane tag should be rephrased to say "This article has been rated as Low-importance within the Wikiproject"? You could then add another tag with a different class and they wouldn't conflict. For example this article could be both a Low-importance hurricane article and a Mid-importance disaster relief article. If you want a more in-depth answer, probably best to ask on the Wikipedia 1.0 talk page, which is where importance originated.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, thanks for the info.. The "low importance" is now disputed: a country's response to another country's disaster is hardly peripheral or trivial. If the project's editorial team see it as trivial, then the editorial team needs to re-examine its scope of focus. If the project want to limit its scope to scientitic and phenomenal aspect of hurricane, then this article should not be part of the project and the tag be removed. Basically the tag is saying, "this article is part of something, but it is not really." Either way, a low-importance tag is unnecessary for the readers, contributors, nor for the project. --Vsion 15:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Forget to add: the "Start-Class" rating is also disputed. This article is reasonably completed and well-referenced. --Vsion 16:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My choice for Low here was based on the logic that any one country's contribution is less important than the combined international response, so the lower class. I for one don't see Low as irrelevant, in this case it acknowledges the fact that this is on the edge of the projects interests. 3 FAs on hurricanes are also Low-importance, which shows we don't consider it a pointless section. Actually thinking about it, I wonder if the project should up the importance by one across the board; the only Top currently is tropical cyclone. Like I said we are still at the initial stage of rating importance. IMO it is still a start, because of the wrong tense in places: "The Singapore team is working..." But that is a minor thing, if those are fixed its a B-class (feel free to update the template accordingly).--Nilfanion (talk) 18:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From that perspective, you are correct. I realise my disagreement is a more general one pertaining to article assessment and won't do much good to discuss it here, and therefore withdraw my objection. I do hope you succeed in shifting up the importance label across the board as you suggested; a little bit of grade inflation won't hurt the project. Thanks for your patience and replies. --Vsion 03:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Importance