User:Veila

Construction site

 * Hard hats mandatory
 * CD Everton

WPF: Importance scale
The importance scale used in the assessment department is, at present, highly generic. This makes it somewhat more difficult to use than perhaps should be the case.

Using a loose taxonomy with a principle of importance, I think we can make things far more approachable without requiring a substantial set of re-classifications. The current system is:


 * Top importance articles are identified as those forming the basis of all information. My interpretation of this is that it includes rules, all regional and dominant national FAs, global tournaments and dominant leagues globally. I can see no way that a player or club could form such a base.


 * High importance articles cover a general area of knowledge. FAs and leagues that fail to reach the level of notariety required for Top would spill into this category, along with the dominant clubs, such as those competing in the top-flight of a Top rated league, historically significant clubs, very important stadia and regional tournaments. Putting highly notable players into this category, while appropriate in the spirit of categorisation by importance, is a dangerous idea. It would lead to inevitable disagreement about merit.


 * Mid importance articles would hold any other club that is deemed notable enough to be on Wikipedia, players notable enough to be on Wikipedia, other stadia and smaller tournaments.


 * Finally, Low importance articles would remain about the specific or trivial.

In general, a player is less important than a club, is less important than a league, is less important than an association, is less important than any global tournament/organisation/rule definition. Likewise, a stadium or other dependent article would normally be one rank lower than the club who own/use it. ⁂veila# 07:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)