Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/Political parties/Assessment

Importance

Shouldn't the importance section be reworded? Most, if not all, articles in the scope of the project are about political parties. Thus the importance scale should be based on different levels of political influence of the individual party. --Soman (talk) 19:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Normally, the "importance" rating is based on how important the particular article is to an understanding of the topic as a whole. For example, a minor state or provincial party would normally be "Low" importance. A party that has had some influence at the state or provincial level might be "Mid" importance. A party that has had some success nationally would be "High" importance, and a party that has had a significant influence on its country (eg. the Liberal Party in Canada or the Republican Party in the United States) might be "Top" importance.

Basing the importance rating on what is currently in the article doesn't make sense, as the content is more related to the quality rating. Importance should normally be stable, whereas quality will change as additions are made or content is removed. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly a discussion that needs to be made, and I am very happy to see it being made here! Once this is ironed out, maybe I can consult you lot as well, before learning how to advance the agreed ideas to the draft policy stage? doktorb _words^deeds 23:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this importance scale looks more like a sort of relevance scale. There are better ones, like Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Release_Version_Criteria#Importance_of_topic. Otto (talk) 11:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]