Category talk:High priority
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Is this unnecessary, given Category:HIGH priority articles? FuzzyCatPotato of the Hateful Toyotas (talk/stalk) 01:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- No, the other one is unnecessary. ωεαşεζøίɗ
Methinks it is a Weasel 08:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with Weaseloid here. The other category, not this one, should be vaped. The other one is placed on talkpages for fuckall reasons. This category was placed on articles themselves so that people knew which ones should be given attention to. NaturalNews being one example of an article this category was added to so bring attention to the need to make a good article. The end result? Our article is on NaturalNews is awesome. Get rid of the other category, which was made as a pretender to this category. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- The other category is placed on talkpages, and it is slightly annoying, but it's how Wikipedia does it (which was probably the inspiration for our rating system), and I don't think it's a fatal problem. (This could be fixed by changing the template to an invisible one and placing it on the page itself, but since the Autorate gadget puts Template:Rated on talkpages, until said gadget can be updated there will always be people putting the template on talkpages.)
- I disagree with your example of NaturalNews. NaturalNews got good when that page got legal threats (same as the Kent Hovind page), not when it was added to that category. And I don't see why Category:HIGH priority articles can't provide the same benefits.
- It doesn't really matter why this or the other category was made -- Category:High priority, before I emptied it, had 40-something articles, of which 1/2 were in Category:HIGH priority articles. Category:HIGH priority articles had about 180. Furthermore, Category:HIGH priority articles fits into the LOW-MID-HIGH system, which this one really doesn't. FuzzyCatPotato of the Hateful Toyotas (talk/stalk) 22:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- This category never had anything to do with where an article "fit" into the article rating system. Indeed, the reason for this category, as this website's founder stated himself, was for us to place it on articles where we could use the articles as an opportunity to attract people to our website. NaturalNews is a great example of where this was important, as there weren't many high-ranking Google articles that were critical of it. You are very wrong about how and why NaturalNews "got good" (I know, because that article has been mine and Gerard's baby for a while). Trent added this category to that article to attract attention to it so that it could be expanded and fine-tuned, and now it's one of the best articles on the Wiki thanks to people like David Gerard and I saying "we need to become a go-to source on this." The legal stuff followed much, much later. Bottom line: the other category is a pretender to what this category was about, and created by people who didn't understand the purpose of this category. If you're going to delete one, let it be the other one. Noisemobile (talk) 09:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- Apologies; I was wrong about NaturalNews. I only knew about the legal issues, not about what happened before.
- I think that having a category for articles imortant to attracting visitors to RW is useful. (You've demonstrated why.) Category:HIGH priority articles can be that category, and already contains many articles that fit that label. Unfortunately, neither Category:HIGH priority articles or Category:High priority had any real standards for what an article needs to be included, and so HIGH now contains many articles that it shouldn't. I've proposed elsewhere that the RW article rating system be expanded from just quality (Bronze/Silver/Cover story) to importance (HIGH/MID/LOW), with accompanying standards. HIGH priority articles would be widely known/used/searched subjects and/or subjects on which no or few other sources exist that are well-referenced and highly-ranked on search engine; they thus merit a "go-to article" RW article. MID priority articles would be somewhat widely known/used/searched and/or have some decent and well-ranked sources; they thus merit a good RW article. LOW priority articles would be rarely known/used/searched and have plenty of good and well-ranked sources; they thus mention a RW article, preferably with links to those other sources. I think that this would obtain the benefits of telling people what articles need work plus the benefits of gadget-integrated templates and multiple levels of priority.
- Does this sound like an acceptable idea? FuzzyCatPotato of the Hateful Toyotas (talk/stalk) 00:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- This category never had anything to do with where an article "fit" into the article rating system. Indeed, the reason for this category, as this website's founder stated himself, was for us to place it on articles where we could use the articles as an opportunity to attract people to our website. NaturalNews is a great example of where this was important, as there weren't many high-ranking Google articles that were critical of it. You are very wrong about how and why NaturalNews "got good" (I know, because that article has been mine and Gerard's baby for a while). Trent added this category to that article to attract attention to it so that it could be expanded and fine-tuned, and now it's one of the best articles on the Wiki thanks to people like David Gerard and I saying "we need to become a go-to source on this." The legal stuff followed much, much later. Bottom line: the other category is a pretender to what this category was about, and created by people who didn't understand the purpose of this category. If you're going to delete one, let it be the other one. Noisemobile (talk) 09:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with Weaseloid here. The other category, not this one, should be vaped. The other one is placed on talkpages for fuckall reasons. This category was placed on articles themselves so that people knew which ones should be given attention to. NaturalNews being one example of an article this category was added to so bring attention to the need to make a good article. The end result? Our article is on NaturalNews is awesome. Get rid of the other category, which was made as a pretender to this category. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
