Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics/Assessment

message: Could we include some guidelines about specific types of articles. What throws me is whether we're judging how well known something is, or how significant. For example, the US 1 cent coin is well known to lots of people (perhaps mostly americans, but I think others as well). But it's significant to only some. Also, who's the casual numismatist? It's such a huge field that it's hard to say. Someone who collects world coins (like me) will know most of the current denominations, but none of the ancient stuff. Here are some examples, with my ideas off the top of my head:
*articles about specific currencies. I have been thinking that obscure ones, like Thai baht should be mid importance. Common ones, like euro/Japanese yen/US dollar/British pound should be top importance. Others, like much of western European, Chinese, Mexican, Canadian would be high.
*articles about specific coins or notes should almost always be be mid importance. Although if we go by whether average readers will know what it is, US and euro should be top. I don't know what's right for these
*most ancient stuff should be mid
Apparently, I haven't even managed to be consistent myself, so if I could get some feedback and have a plan, it would help.
As for quality, I'm reading that A-class is better than Good Article. So, if an article is marked A, it should easily meet GA (not the class, the official Wikipedia Good Article designation). Does that seem right? Ingrid 00:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think all of the circulating currencies should be atleast high, if not top since alot of people worldwide and everyone from that country will know of them.  Most other modern coins should go by how well known and historical coins go by significance.  Most modern currencies haven't had a huge chance to make a lasting impact yet, while ancient coins, well, no one alive rememebers thier use except as historically important.  I really don't think the importance scale itself is to important, lol...but...if someone disagrees on an article we can discuss individuals then.  Joe  I 10:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Quality, yes, A should be better than GA standard wise, and would be able to atleast be considered for GA or FA status.  If it's GA, A or FA material, but needs wikifing or such, mark the attention in  so it can be worked on to meet standards.  Joe  I 10:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guidelines 

message: What should we do about images? I've gone through many categories, lots are filled with just images. Should we just put "NA" as the class and leave it at that? Your input would be helpful. Johann Wolfgang 18:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I saw that and have been trying to think bout it. I would prefer NA because there's so many and hard to judge, but then we have two images that are FA allready.  Joe  I 18:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't we just make another category? Something like . This would work for us, we could also rate it as well. Maybe . Please tell me what you think. By the way, I'll be finished assessing all numismatic-related articles in about a week, after that we need to put the images into a category. Johann Wolfgang 22:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds good to me. I can have User:WatchlistBot fix them. Ingrid 18:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you get the bot to tag all images in the project with . That would be wonderful. This would save us alot of time. I hope this is possible. Johann Wolfgang 22:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's what I was offering. Has that been added as an option to the template? Ingrid 01:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Unless someone replies in the next couple of days, I'm going to use WatchlistBot to tag all images as class=NA. Ingrid 21:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine by me. --Chochopk 22:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: I am going to help the initial assessment, but I have to ask how is it possible to maintain the assessment in the long run. What if someone, expert of some regional matter but not of currency expert, improves an article for a significant amount? --Chochopk 07:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would hope individual editors would change the rankings, but, I'm sure one of us in the project will see a substaintial change and adjust the assessment accordinlly.  Joe  I 14:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maintenance 

message: I just discovered that Johann Wolfgang and I have a very different scale for quality. I'm not saying that either is definitely the "correct" one. I am new to this too, so I would like to bring this to everyone's attention. IMHO, I would say Algerian dinar and Ukrainian shah would be start class, instead of B. But if I am too strict, I will tone down a little. --Chochopk 01:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with those two. I haven't used B for articles unless they're close to GA. Ukrainian shah is missing the infobox. Both are missing images of the coins/bills, and succession boxes. They're also missing references, as are most of our articles. These are all things I look for in a B class article. I am also willing to modify my standards, if that's consensus. Either way, I think it would be helpful to spell out which items each type of article should have (and I could write up what I use if you want) Ingrid 01:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Johann Wolfgang and I 

message: So disambig articles would have class=NA? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 09:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the first I've done, but cannot see anyother way.  Since there's really no subject matter on that particular page, I consider them much the same as catagory pages.
I just added List/Cat/Template/Dab parameters to the .  Joe  I 02:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: While we're at it, what about image class? And why do we not have a low importance? Mid seems to cover so much. Since I'm not very active these days, I'm hesitant to make the change myself, but if you approve, I can do it. Also, I can use WatchlistBot to reclass images/templates/DAB/Cat, but not lists. Also, it shouldn't be too hard to find the lists from the watchlist. Ingrid 02:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, image is a great idea. I'm not sure about the low importance, you may want to take that up with  Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team.  And might as well put your bot to use.  :)  Speaking of which, can you look over Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronics, to see if you have time to bot those articles, I just started an assesment there, but will wait for others to comment before starting the bot.  Thanks Ingrid  :)  Joe  I 02:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While we're at it, what about "portal" class? See :Category:Classification templates. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 17:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definatly, see no problem with such.  The more the merrier, right?  Joe  I 17:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Replying to searchme above -- hope this doesn't get lost. Other projects have low importance already (including India and Australia for example). See :Category:Importance_templates (which I found on a google search -- not sure exactly what it is, but there's a low-importance template there). Ingrid 21:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I would say only the list parameter would need an importance rating.  Joe  I 02:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done with . But Ingrid's bot still needs to be modified to recognize these. I can help with identifying lists manually. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 17:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Next time I get around to it (probably in the next couple of days), I'll retag all the NA pages that need it (except lists). Were you thinking it would be useful to split out lists in the watchlist? That is, have another heading for Lists, like Articles, Categories, etc. It wouldn't be trivial, since the bot works on many projects, and most of them probably don't have a list class. I don't think it would be hard though. Ingrid 20:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that images don't need an importance. I also wanted to mention that using the bot to classify dab pages will not be as quick as the others, since they appear as Talk: pages (that's how the bot figures out which type of page it's looking at). There are other indicators, either the disambig project template, which is not always there, or the disambig category. So, it can be done, but will take a bit more time. The only other class of articles we haven't split out is Wikipedia. Do we want to? Ingrid 21:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I was looking for an example like that, and couldn't find it earlier. Unless/until we can classify the same article into 2 classes, I think it needs to be classified as an article. When I was looking, I saw franc and mark which are split into two pages (probably because they have non-currency meanings as well). That could be a way to handle it though. Ingrid 23:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lists could probably be done best by hand, there are not that many and they need an importance rating. As for the watchlist and lists, they are in article namespace and act the same, so I see no need for distinction. If the dabs will be a problem, those maybe to should be done by hand.  We will have to differentiate between full dab pages (Mark) and half article/dab (Ruble and Franc).  In the case of any that contain more text than an intro paragraph, I think tagging them as regular articles would be best to our purposes.  Or we could just leave multi meaning dab pages alone (Franc (disambiguation) and Mark) to concentrate on sole currency meanings (Ruble, and Mark (money)).  Joe  I 05:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics#I had an epiphany. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 02:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever galleries there are, yeah, I think act more like lists and should be labeled as such.  I've allready done all the portal pages, unless you wanted to do each sub-subpage, such as Portal:Numismatics/Selected article/13 and Portal:Numismatics/Selected issue/5.  I thought that would be to much clutter, but whatever.  Joe  I 03:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The four examples you gave have very simple intros and so I would keep them as dabs.  Joe  I 03:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  disambig page 

message: I was wondering if we wanted to consider creating task forces ("currencies" is the one I can think of, that I would be personally most interested in, or perhaps splitting it into one for each continent). Or perhaps just tags to add to the template indicating what is needed (I can think of "needs_references", "needs_infobox", "needs_tables", and "needs_succession"). It would be nice to be able to use all of these tags to systematically improve articles (which I know Chochopk has been working on, and doing a great job of!). I stayed away for awhile, but now that I've dipped my toe back in, I want to jump right in -- I'm so bad at balance. Which is to say, I may end up disappearing again at any moment, so I'm not exactly volunteering to help tag everything (although I'd be happy to help set it up. Ingrid 01:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can understand the tags, that would help alot.  Task force, I don't really have an opinion on.  Main concern would be how to differentiate currencies from everything else.  Would that include coins, private currencies, historical, currency laws, currency designers, etc...?  It really doesn't matter to me, if you think it would help, go for it.  I know Exonumia could be one.  Joe  I 03:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Chochopk/Currency article status. It's now written in codes and abbreviations that may not be apparent to everyone. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 23:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow! That was exactly the sort of thing I was thinking of. Would you find it helpful to have tags on the template to help keep track of the info? If what you're doing is working for you as is, I see no need to change anything. Ingrid 00:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I do mean the template. Specifically, adding a flag like needs_infobox which is yes/no, and yes puts the article into a category like "numismatic articles whose infobox needs work". There could also be a comments field to allow specific suggestions. I suggested it because I didn't know about your table, and I noticed that when assessing articles, I'm checking for all these things anyway. I thought it might make it easier to keep track of why articles are assessed as they are, and when they need to be reevaluated. But like I said, since you seem to be doing most of the work of filling in missing stuff, if you like the table, by all means use it! Ingrid 01:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  task force? tags? 

message: I believe that articles like EURion constellation, Microprinting, and Watermark should receive the same class. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 03:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I didn't realize I had given them different ratings.  What would be best, mid? or high?  I think alot of people know about a few security devices within currency.  I was also thinking of starting :Category:Currency security features or such, probly best placed under :Category:Currency production.  Joe  I 03:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe mid is appropriate. Except watermark, and hologram if exists on banknotes, most people don't know these little detail. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 04:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti counterfeit technology 

message: There is an argument for distinguishing coins (official pieces, used as money) from tokens (unofficial pieces, used as money), pseudo-coins (official pieces, not used as money) and medals (unofficial pieces, not used as money) and for ditinguishing medals (commercial objects) from decorations (objects issued to reward commendable behviour) throughout Wikipedia. However, see my remark on the discussion page of Coins of Lundy.
--Peterk2 12:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper terminology