User talk:Awkwafaba/Archive 4

Hi Awkwafaba, Why did you change the importance ratings of Mitigation from mid and low to high for 6 projects without obvious discussion. Are you a member of all those projects? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@Pbsouthwood: there is no requirement, nor consensus, that one needs to be a member of a project to rate it. Also one can always Be Bold and make changes without discussing everything. The page has a huge amount of traffic, which is what many WPs use to inform the importance rating. If you feel the article should be rated differently, then change it. Unless you would prefer to have discussions at each wikiproject first. Cheers. --awkwafaba (📥) 13:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I am fairly sure this is all explained somewhere, but I don't remember where at the moment.
There is no requirement to be a member of any project to rate class/quality, that is a relatively objective assessment, with written criteria, and any competent person can apply those criteria and arrive at a quality assessment that is likely to be acceptable. Even an automated system can get it close enough much of the time. Importance rating to a project is relative to project goals, and has no necessary connection to importance to anyone else, and traffic is not usually relevant, and it is usual to not make startling changes to importance rating for projects in which you are not active, like a change from low to high. I have changed the importance ratings back. In the case of the projects in which I am active, because I think your ratings were inappropriate for those projects, and for the others because someone else rated them differently and I respect their good faith assessment of the article's importance to those projects.
I suggest that in future you only re-rate importance for projects where you have sufficient familiarity with project goals and some personal experience. By all means suggest a change on the article talk page, or at the project talk page if you think the currently rated importance should be reconsidered. If you are the original rater for a project, then you have more leeway to be bold, as you would not be overruling the opinion of someone who has the experience to make a more appropriate choice, but it remains preferable to take project goals into account. If you feel that any user should be allowed to decide on importance for any project, regardless of familiarity with the goals of the project, or that traffic counts over a short period should overrule or decide the project goals, please open a RfC to test consensus. For projects where you are a member, go ahead and rate according to project guidelines. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

PS: an average of 130 page views per day over the last month is not a large amount of traffic by Wikipedia standards. Coronavirus disease 2019 has a huge amount of traffic. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 15:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@Pbsouthwood: Leaving importance as blank is the correct rating 0% of the time. Selecting an importance, even by chance, is correct 25%. If a member of the project needs to adjust later, they did not have to do any additional work. They either change it from a blank or change it from an incorrect value. I think, from my history, that I have more than a 25% chance of getting it right. The rule of thumb I have seen for traffic relating to importance for the majority of projects is 0-10 views per day is low, 10-100 is mid, and over 100 is high. There are exceptions, sure, but again it's a rough guideline. There are far more unrated pages than editors willing to check them. Pushing that pile down only helps. --awkwafaba (📥) 17:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

1. Leaving it blank is also wrong 0% of the time.
   As I said, setting importance that has not already been set is a place you can be bold, preferably with discretion and some common sense. I would not have commented at all if you had merely set importance where none had been set before, except to discuss a possible change if I thought it should be different, even for a project of which I am a member. Also, and more importantly, the original point was that setting importance to something different when it has already been set, requires a greater level of competence, since it is reasonably likely to be right already, and changing it arbitrarily (without sufficient knowledge of the project's goals) is more likely to be wrong than right. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 18:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
2. Do you have a reference for this rule of thumb of pageviews being a valid indicator of article importance for a project? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 18:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
3. The majority of articles of interest to any given project are rated low importance by that project. I hesitate to claim an average or characteristic value, since the variation could be very large, so will use a familiar example. In WPSCUBA, there are 11 top importance,82 high importance,143 mid importance,842 low importance,and 226 not applicable for a total of 1,304 articles. A bit of simple math will show that assessing as low importance has a better than 50% chance of being correct, while high importance has a less than 10% chance of being correct. Selecting at random should give an equal probability of any of the possible importance ratings, so a 1 in 5 chance of selecting low importance, and a 4 in 5 chance of selecting an option with a lower probability of correctness. This shows that it is better to arbitrarily select low importance than to rely on chance, even if you used a true random selection. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:48, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
4. Please indicate what, in your history, shows that your importance assessments are likely to be correct more than 25% of the time. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

These are relevant:

• Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Release_Version_Criteria#Importance_of_topic.
• Wikipedia:Content_assessment#Importance_assessment
• Wikipedia:Content_assessment#Statistics. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 09:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
170,692		Coronavirus disease 2019 (talk)	Add sources
457		Basigin (talk)	Add sources
269		Centre-Val de Loire (talk)	Add sources
1,453		Asteroid mining (talk)	Add sources
55		Anzu wyliei (talk)	Add sources
78,460		Black Death (talk)	Add sources
13		Articular bone (talk)	Cleanup
629		Francisco Duque (talk)	Cleanup
559		Password strength (talk)	Cleanup
14		Bicentenaria (talk)	Expand
28,183		2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in mainland China (talk)	Expand
220		Demersal fish (talk)	Expand
270		Seabed (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
818		Drake Passage (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
6		Stratigraphy of the Cambrian (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
410		Laurasia (talk)	Merge
389		Flatten the curve (talk)	Merge
5		Psammophis lineolatus (talk)	Merge
173		Reduced chi-squared statistic (talk)	Wikify
350		Cooperative learning (talk)	Wikify
125		Thread (yarn) (talk)	Wikify
2		Acciptrid herpesvirus 1 (talk)	Orphan
2		Above Maiden virus (talk)	Orphan
2		Chonelasma oreia (talk)	Orphan
6		Chiridotidae (talk)	Stub
8		Tropidoscincus variabilis (talk)	Stub
4		Expozine (talk)	Stub
16		Madeiran large white (talk)	Stub
35		Asif Muhammad Khan (talk)	Stub
103		Pyknosis (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Awkwafaba! Here is the April 2020 issue of TheWikiWizard.

• Coronavirus Pandemic Message A special message for everyone during this time
• What's Hot! (Wikipedia Time?)
• Articles (none this month)
• The Wikipedian (we have a user!)
• News about Wikipedia! (Wikipedia News and Events!)
• Editor's Notes (News!)
• Activity Page (Fun Activities, and super cool stuff...)
• Ads (Super Cool Ads)

We hope you like this month's issue! If you'd like to discuss this issue, please go to this issue's talk page. Happy Reading & stay safe! --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
181		Bottom feeder (talk)	Add sources
16		Cosmic ancestry (talk)	Add sources
69		Mark Curran (talk)	Add sources
94		National Biodiversity Network (talk)	Add sources
8,561		Borderline personality disorder (talk)	Add sources
25		Nqwebasaurus (talk)	Add sources
5,034		Joe Biden sexual assault allegation (talk)	Cleanup
27		Den-en-chōfu (talk)	Cleanup
77		Lime tree in culture (talk)	Cleanup
149,766		2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States (talk)	Expand
25		Vagaceratops (talk)	Expand
30		Albertaceratops (talk)	Expand
188		Conodont (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
14,137		2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
4,044		Mozambique (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
753		Isolation (health care) (talk)	Merge
195		Meteor (web framework) (talk)	Merge
124		Jain literature (talk)	Merge
918		Federalism in the United States (talk)	Wikify
60		Betaarterivirus suid 1 (talk)	Wikify
33		Orangutans in popular culture (talk)	Wikify
2		Amphidiscella lecus (talk)	Orphan
1		Oopsacas olympica (talk)	Orphan
2		Farrea truncata (talk)	Orphan
14		Dendrochirotida (talk)	Stub
298		Apolemia (talk)	Stub
7		Little Japanese horseshoe bat (talk)	Stub
5		Manefish (talk)	Stub
5		Arcangelo Chiocchetti (talk)	Stub
10		Myriotrochidae (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect ทุเรียน-ริะกกะ. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 3#ทุเรียน-ริะกกะ until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Paul_012 (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• WP:TOLN

April 2020—Issue 013

Tree of Life

Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!

• Note A: Total is off by one; not worth looking for the error.
• Note B Three food biographies moved [1] per discussion at WT:FAC
• Note: The very odd dates used in earlier years result from pulling old data from the talk page at WP:FAS.

*subset of natural sciences

Unsurprisingly, the number of GAs has increased more rapidly than the number of FAs. Organisms, which is a subcategory of Natural sciences, has seen a GA growth of 755% since 2008, besting the Natural sciences overall growth of 530%. While Warfare had far and away the most significant growth of GAs, it's a clear outlier relative to other categories.

Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.