Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand/Assessment

Untitled

The table at the top of the Instructions section doesn't seem to change dynamically. How often is it regenerated? THere should probably be a note as to frequency and last accurate date. dramatic 19:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed this too. However, it does change, but I don't know how it works! sorry--Nengscoz416 (talk) 23:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gather it's updated automatically every three days by WP 1.0 bot, although you can also request an immediate update here. -- Avenue (talk) 12:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ah ha, the bot updates it every 3 - 10 days but if you want an instantaneous result, click the above link and type New Zealand in the gap. --Nengscoz416 (talk) 04:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assessing importance

Are there more specific guidelines available than those on the project page? I'm particularly interested in assessing the importance of geographical articles.

My suggestion is that places with less than 1,000 people have a default assessment of low class; those with 1,000-10,000 have medium class; those of 10,000-100,000 have high class, and those over 100,000 people have top class. Special events or considerations may bump an article up a class; Queenstown, New Zealand is more important than its population may suggest, although since it just makes it over the 10,000 mark maybe high class is correct. Aramoana has a tiny population, but the 1990 massacre makes it medium class. Waitangi, Northland also has a tiny population, but it was the site of a very major historical event, and it is a focus of the news once a year on Waitangi Day. It might go up two classes, to high class.

Does this make any sense? Have any other wikiprojects spelled out the assessment criteria like this?-gadfium 07:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That might not be a bad starting point, although I agree population alone isn't always enough to go on. For example, Milford Sound has a low population, but is moderately important, while in contrast Manukau has a huge population but is currently rated low (which doesn't seem appropriate; in my view it should be high, but not top). I've often been classifying our articles on the quality scale only, because the importance scale seems so vague.

The only other project I've done a fair bit of assessment for is the volcanoes project. It has pretty extensive guidelines here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Volcanoes/Assessment#Importance_scale. -- Avenue (talk) 08:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that cities such as Manukau which have high populations but are part of a greater metropolitan area should be "high" not "top" importance. I've upgraded Manukau based on this discussion.-gadfium 19:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A rule of thumb I use is (10 * number of interlanguage links) + (number articles under "what links here")
<20 low, <100 medium, <500 high. XLerate (talk) 11:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the 2008 traffic analysis, the cutoffs would be:

2008 hits	Importance
> 68,000	Top
> 16,000	High
> 3,000	Mid
remainder	Low

XLerate (talk) 09:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Class=?

Greetings - having gone from a messy wreck article last night noticed a lot of cats are not tagged - went for a foray and am a bit concerned - is it class=cat or class=NA for the NZ project? It would be good to get an answer from those who do it - cheers Satu Suro 04:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't classified any category articles, but it appears that they are class=NA. See Category:Non-article New Zealand pages.-gadfium 04:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are some rogue class=cat's around though :( Satu Suro 04:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying - full steam ahead then - Satu Suro 05:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic tagging

As was mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand I have a list of nearly 11k articles ready to be tagged with {{WikiProject New Zealand}}. The template has been updated to included the auto=yes option, and I plan to use this in conjunction with class=stub for all Category:New Zealand stubs articles.

I intend to automatically add an importance= rating based on the article traffic survey, based on:

Traffic index	Importance
<= 100	Top
<= 554	High
<= 3069	Mid
remainder ~14k	Low

XLerate (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't thought of assessing importance according to the article traffic. It will certainly lead to some anomalies: I doubt that many people would consider Halo: Chronicles to be a top-importance article for New Zealand, and I suspect that a large proportion of people visiting that article have no particular interest in the country of origin. Still, it seems a reasonable first cut, and the importance rating can be tweaked by editors later.-gadfium 00:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree traffic and importance are not the same, Halo is a good example. But it appears in many cases to be a reasonable approximation, and can show editors where they may get the best return for effort. I've tried to remove all articles with a less certain connection with the project: movies, military battles, Cook Islands (WP:Polynesia) subtopics, NZ expats, etc. I also plan to check prospective top and high articles, eyeball that list for any obvious anomalies. There will still be the odd error, but I think the amount of legwork saved (11k articles) significantly outweighs them. A disclaimer similiar to the auto stub message could be good. XLerate (talk) 02:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment drive?

There are just over six and a half thousand unassessed articles (class wise). How about an assessment drive to get that number right down, awarding users for assessing x articles. I suggest basing it on the WikiProject Biography drive of 2008. Your thoughts? Adabow (talk) 23:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, just looked at one "unassessed" article and it was c-class but showing as unassessed because the class parameter in the template had been capitalized. dramatic (talk) 01:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've started tackling the mid-importance list, By the way. 650-odd pages.dramatic (talk) 08:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've started going through the NA-importance list alphabetically, starting from "A". – Liveste (talk • edits) 00:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Four months down the track and I've knocked off around 1600 articles - the mid-importance list is gone, plus the completely unassessed list (although that keeps growing again). I'm currently working through list-class articles without importance before looking at the low-imporetance classless articles. dramatic (talk) 07:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've managed to assess the importance of all the politics articles. In the process of doing so, I've reassessed the class of many of the articles. I've also improved quite a few articles along the way, which is why it took a while to get through it all. Schwede 66 22:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One year on and I'm still knocking off 5 - 20 articles a day. The no-importance stubs queue has just been eliminated (with quite a bit of splitting of articles about multiple rivers along the way) and I'm just catching up with the completely unassessed articles before moving to unclassed stubs. dramatic (talk) 18:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting an assessment - how to manage old requests

Gadfium made the useful comment that old assessment requests should be removed. Would a good way to go about it be to move that section to the talk page (or a separate sub-page altogether) and then set up auto-archiving? Schwede 66 06:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA nom

Hi all - I'm about to nominate the article South Dunedin, which I have contributed substantially to, for GA status. If anyone can improve the article, please, now would be a great time to do so! Grutness...wha? 04:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand First Youth

Does anybody know why New Zealand First Youth appears in the assessment table (Quality: other; Importance: ???)? It got deleted many months ago. Schwede 66 18:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on assessment

I am wondering what kinds of things can be dropped from the New Zealand project. I have uncertainty around sports people born overseas and spending a few seasons representing a local side in NZ, and people born in NZ and representing local sides overseas. Also non notable introduced species and notable people who retire to New Zealand. I have been very subjective on these points and would like a rule (any rule) to work with. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

My thoughts are:

Re sports, if someone has played a season with a New Zealand team then they belong to the respective category.
Re born here, that will make you a NZ expatriate if you play sports overseas.
Re non-notable species introduced to NZ, it should not belong to a NZ category. Being a notable pest makes the difference.
Re people who retire to New Zealand, they would be expatriates in New Zealand.

Does that help? Schwede 66 20:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is helpful, I have not been too far off track. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

What to leave in, what to leave out

I have been doing some New Zealand Project assessments and want to ramp up my activity, mostly on those that do not have an importance ranking yet. My general rule has been; if unsure, leave it in the project as I can always get them on a second run. I would like to remove the following from the project and want some feedback as I may have the wrong end of the stick entirely:

1: they are an international sports person who played in New Zealand briefly (~ less that two full seasons)
2: they are an international diplomat who did not spend much time in New Zealand (representive to Austalia and New Zealand etc)
3: Members of the Canterbury Association who did not come to NZ (not the leaders)
4: a plant or animal that is found in many nations including New Zealand and is not very important here.
5: people who came to New Zealand for a degree, but are notable for overseas activities
6: Born in New Zealand left as a child (?)

As for low, medium, high I have been trying to think outside my bubble. Am I on the right track. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

I would include plant and animal species that are endemic to New Zealand (found only here). Native species, that breed here but are found elsewhere, should only be included if they are culturally or biologically important to New Zealand (great egret, Australasian snapper). Otherwise every cosmopolitan animal or plant species will have a string of Wikiprojects associated with it. Introduced species not at all, unless there's something really important about their presence in New Zealand (common brushtail possum). That's my feeling anyway. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 01:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can work with that thanks Giantflightlessbirds. I have probably left in too many cosmopolitan natives by that standard. But my main concern was excluding animals that others would have kept in (Dushan Jugum (talk) 01:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

I think I would tend to be a bit more inclusive than Giantflightlessbirds regarding native species. To me, the relevant questions are not just whether the species is important to New Zealand, but also whether New Zealand is important to the species - i.e. would a well-developed article on the species probably include more than a paragraph or so relating to New Zealand? Either is enough for inclusion. E.g. I wouldn't say Pacific Black Duck is all that important to NZ, but I think NZ plays a fairly important part in its story, so it should be included.

And I agree NZ endemics should be included, but I think endemic means found naturally only here. So I would include all the species listed in Invasive species of New Zealand origin, for example. --Avenue (talk) 14:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are all good points. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 18:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Defunct railway stations in New Zealand

See:Category:Defunct railway stations in New Zealand. Some of these will be notable in their own right (Palmerston North Central railway station?), most however, seem a little slight. I am not about to launch a crusade, just trying to figure out the rules as they are really applied. Pigeon Bush railway station is a good example of where I imagine the stubs going one day with a lot of work, still not that notable. If I get no replies I will put it in the long list of strange things on Wikipedia and move on with my life. But, I would like to understand. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 06:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

Sorry – what's the question? Schwede 66 08:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Schwede, Good call:). I can't find many of these pages notable by normal standards, what am I doing wrong? (Dushan Jugum (talk) 09:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

Ah. I see. I reckon that there are so many railway enthusiasts out there that there are a huge number of books written about rail infrastructure. You may find that most of them are probably notable. If you are unsure, pick a couple and put them through AfD to find out what level of interest / knowledge is out there. Schwede 66 09:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was bugging me, but your answer makes good sense. If they stay away from my pages on rocks, I will stay away from their railway stations. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 09:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)).[reply]