Template talk:WikiProject Ancient Germanic studies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Message moved from John Carter's talk page:
Hello! I noticed your good contributions to the AGS WikiProject and the subgroup Runic studies task force. I like the expandable assessment comments area very much, for example. However, I think you have worked a bit excessively some places, i.e adding an importancy scale, in particlar to the Runic studies work group. Runic studies being a task force, it is there mainly to focus the work on areas within the scope of the mother project. Thus there is no need for a separate importancy scale, in my opinion. If the Runic studies are parted from the AGS project, and established as an own project, that is another case. I do not think that we are in need of an importancy scale for the AGS project either, really. I believe the members are well-oriented in these topics (or should be), and will know the importancy of these articles by themselves. If the scope was much bigger, it would have been helpful (as with the Norse project), but with AGS the low importance rated articles might become under-prioritized, which is counter-productive. In addition, many are sloppy with assessing articles, and it's very likely that one may end up with 80% of the articles unassessed. Best regards, –Holt TC 20:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No objections. I think I was still recovering in August from the blows to the head, so that might explain why I didn't do it earlier. I do however think that it might be valuable to have an importance rating for the parent project. It won't be immediately obvious to all parties which articles the project has decided to put the bulk of the given content on a specific subject in. Those articles would be, effectively, the "top" importance articles for the project, and listing them as such might be beneficial to drawing other members of the group to those articles. Similarly, if there were to be a second navigation box on a subtopic, spinning off from the first, those articles would probably be "high", and so on down the line. For those reasons, I might consider leaving the importance for the parent in place. However, the decision is ultimately yours. John Carter (talk) 18:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
No problem, I figured you were recovering, so I waited until I saw that you had removed the notice. I see the benefits of importance ranking, but right now I am not completely comfortable with having it in the AGS WP. As a compromise, one could easily have an updated list of important articles on the main page of the project – not as user friendly, but at least it draws focus off the inaccurate importance rating of any given article. I'll see if I can get a third (and a fourth) opinion on this, it'd be nice to hear what others think about importance ratings in any case. –Holt (TC) 19:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Personally I think that the importancy field is pretty pointless when it comes to fairly small Wikiprojects, which I think this Wikiproject is unfortunately goingto be given the subject matter (there is only so much material to write on). :bloodofox: (talk) 20:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree, and I doubt that the division of articles into importance categories is compliant with WP:NPOV.--Berig (talk) 14:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)