Talk:University of California Museum of Paleontology

WP UC importance
According to the criteria on the WikiProject University of California/Assessment page, "top" imprtance is "reserved for subjects that have achieved international notability within their field." Since UCMP has international notability in the field of paleontology, it meets the stated criteria for "Top" importance. If there is a problem, then the project's stated criteria need to be corrected. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have updated the criteria text appropriately and switched the priority (a better term than "importance", IMHO) for this article back to "High" since this article isn't quite a "Top" priority for the UC project. Note that this means nothing for other projects, which should feel free to prioritize the article based on their own criteria.  It also isn't necessarily reflective of the importance or notability of the subject matter for Wikipedia as a whole.  The only reason this article is being prioritized as "High" rather than "Top" is to draw a distinction between this article and the articles for the UC campuses themselves, which are significantly more important to the project than any other articles within the same scope.


 * OK, but this is the museum for the entire UC system, so even under the newly stated criteria it is still "Top" importance. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I wasn't aware of that fact regarding the museum, and suppose that in light of it the museum probably does belong as a "Top" ranked article &mdash; assuming there aren't a disproportionate number of other UC-wide institutions that would qualify under the same criteria. The goal here is to prioritize all of the articles within the scope of this project, and to have the distribution among the various "Importance" levels follow roughly the shape of a bell curve &mdash; very few in "Top", slightly more in "High", most of them in "Mid", and fewer in "Low".


 * I'll go through the articles when I get a chance and see how many more cover UC-wide institutions or topics and warrant inclusion in "Top" for their own reasons, to make sure this all makes sense. Help with this would be appreciated.  --UC_Bill (talk) 15:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In terms of a distibution, I'd expect a hyperbolic curve rather than a bell. There are bound to always be more low-importance articles out there. For example, take a look at the assessment table for WP:PLANTS, where we have a large number of project articles identified.  The number of articles in each successively lower level of importance multiples on the higher level number. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)