Category talk:Article priority

Is there any method to how these are being categorized at all? I'm looking at the lists. Oregon Petition, low priority. Abiotic oil, low priority. Obamacare, high priority. Ghost Hunters high priority. Abortion is high priority, but pornography, cisgender, and queer are low priority. Jack Chick, Iraq War, , and moral panic, mid priority. RW's most popular article, Poe's Law, only mid priority. Something not making sense here. 184.19.104.1 (talk) 13:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Mostly making it up. But why would Poe's Law need to be high priority just because it's popular? It's a silly internet adage. ADK^{...I'll revolve your broadsword!} 15:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

We have a ton of technically off mission articles that are still very nice. Тy^rant 16:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

TOW sets article priority according to how popular the page is, and therefore how carefully the page should be watched and maintained. If we don't have a set of criteria for article priority here then the whole thing is a fart in a colander. I'd argue for a blend of popularity and missionality. I may be wrong, but right now the whole thing looks like we're doing it because WP do it, without much thought to why they do it. Rennie McGreet (talk) 16:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, "how carefully the page should be watched and maintained" implies asking RW editors to do actual work. ^moral 16:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

shit, yeah. um... set priority to "how much Ty can be arsed" then? Rennie McGreet (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)