Talk:Margaret Bazley

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Margaret Bazley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150610220400/http://ecan.govt.nz/about-us/your-council/commissioners/pages/about.aspx to http://ecan.govt.nz/about-us/your-council/commissioners/Pages/about.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120604202359/http://www.dpmc.govt.nz/node/1045 to http://www.dpmc.govt.nz/node/1045

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Downgrading of importance
hey there. Saw your comments on Schwede66's talk page and it reminded me I was going to ask about your downgrading of Bazley's page. To my mind anyone who belongs to the Order of New Zealand is a top importance bio, regardless of readership; I take it you have a different view? I don't feel super strongly about it, although maybe this can be discussed on the main WP page as you've suggested. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 09:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)


 * ONZ – just my thinking.  Schwede 66  09:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It is my civilian view that members of the order are very important, but important in the real-world way that Wikipedia importance rankings are not as concerned with. So I don’t like the idea of that particular rule for top importance but, like you, I don’t feel that strongly about it. (Though I would support such a rule for high importance.) If you want to change it back, I won’t be the least bit offended. Especially, as you read, if the project can support more articles than there are currently listed in top.
 * Margaret Bazley (along with Thomas Williams, Miles Warren, Kenneth Keith, Ken Douglas and Jonathan Hunt) gets less than 10 views per day. For reference, The Piano gets 1000. Pavlova gets 1600, and Bruce McLaren gets 1100. (Kauri dieback, also a top-importance article for some reason, gets 20.) The scale here is what I have been thinking about. I certainly don’t advocate for hard viewcount limits, but I also don’t think that there’s any harm to demoting some less “popular” ONZ members to high importance. But again, that’s just my take—certainly not my hill to die on. — HTGS (talk) 13:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining! Yeah, looking at WikiProject New Zealand/Assessment I think high importance is fair ("This article is fairly important to this project, as it covers a general area of knowledge"), and also taking into account the explanation above the template ("The criteria ... attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it)"). To my mind, page views are relevant to that assessment. I think I had previously seen Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria and was thinking of that kind of standard ("Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopedia"), which I think is arguably applicable to all ONZ members. But, perhaps less useful as it might result in our attention being directed more to pages that aren't actually visited all that much...
 * Anyway, all that's a long-winded saying that I'm fine with the change to high importance, but also remain largely unbothered and open to persuasion if someone has a compelling view in favour of top importance. :) Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)