User talk:Pknkly/TempWork01

Initial concept discussions

The use of this kind of table was discussed at User talk:Xeno#Auto-assess Importance parameter?. Pknkly (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Obviously if something like this were to be done, an additional parameter "autoimportance" or something should be use. I believe WP:INDIANA is going to try something similar, fwiw. WP:CHI can take a look at how that goes and decide from there. –xeno^talk 16:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, please let me know how it went or if they need help. Pknkly (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The bot had no problem completing the task, so it's just whether the CHI project agrees this is worthwhile. Let me know. –xeno^talk 17:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Great! Will check in with Tony. I'm ready. Hope we can use the current CHIBOTCATS with a delimiter. I really didn't like Indiana's grouping of the codes. Looked like extra work. Pknkly (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I had left a question somewhere for Xeno about my lack of understanding of whether this was working. I saw an auto assessed importance on the first one that I checked that made no sense. Did he respond?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep, its at User talk:Xeno/Archive 19#Confused on inherited importance. Its not inherited, its defaulted to whatever we set it to.Pknkly (talk) 07:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems that based on cognitive assessment it is an important bridge, but automated assessment places it as unimportant. This was the first one I looked at. Not a fan of auto assessment. P.S. I don't think the unassessed articles in any category should default to high. The things that remain unassigned are likely at most mid. Also, how is this page linked to the WP:CHIASSESS. It needs to be linked there.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I see your point about cognitive assessment. An automated review is cognitive based solely on category. Project members gave it some thought and felt a certain category (e.g., bridges) would probably be low importance. If you don't do any form of assessment, the article would linger without any cognitive review at all. To me, unassessed articles means they are so unimportant that they don't even merit a review. Think of automated as the first or initial cognitive review which should ideally be followed by the second level review done by an editor. Pknkly (talk) 15:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

As for default High - I looked at the description and examples for High Importance. It basically said that articles that are already assigned to national registries have already passed a level of scrutiny and would probably be a high important article due to its inclusion in a notable list. Another example to make the point: if we had a category called "U.S. Presidents from Chicago, Illinois", I'm sure we would assign a Top Importance default to articles using that category. Pknkly (talk) 15:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• It might be the case that half the NRHP properties in Chicago are high-importance, but it is not the case that half those that are unassessed are high. The really important ones are mostly assessed already, IMO. Similar for the other high categories that you list.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"This page" I'm hoping will be the CHIBOTCATS with a new parameter. I wouldn't want to see another separate list that needs maintaining and synchronizing. The default assignments could be changed any time. Look at the categories and change them as you see they should be - future editors will be doing that too. Pknkly (talk) 15:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like you are reluctently ready to go forward. Is that right? Pknkly (talk) 15:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)