Talk:Hurricane Ioke/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Hurricane Ioke. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Importance
I was afraid this would only be Mid. Shouldn't it be High given how rare, powerful, and record-setting Ioke was? BTW, if this persists as a debate for five days, I suggest launching a poll. --Dylan620 (Home • yadda yadda yadda • Ooooohh!) 00:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'd be fine with High-importance. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- OK, but I plan on waiting until a total of 3 people give the green light (and that's out of 5). Even so, Julian, since you're OK with High-importance, that means 2 more green lights are needed before I can comfortably raise this to High. --Dylan620 (Home • yadda yadda yadda • Ooooohh!) 01:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- I would personally go for Top Importance for Ioke as this is the most important storm for the CPac due to Ioke being the Most intense storm ever in the CPac Jason Rees (talk) 01:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure about Top-importance. It was a notable storm, but it just doesn't seem like one of WPTC's most important subjects. Those are usually reserved for storms that caused catastrophic damage. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- I would personally go for Top Importance for Ioke as this is the most important storm for the CPac due to Ioke being the Most intense storm ever in the CPac Jason Rees (talk) 01:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- OK, but I plan on waiting until a total of 3 people give the green light (and that's out of 5). Even so, Julian, since you're OK with High-importance, that means 2 more green lights are needed before I can comfortably raise this to High. --Dylan620 (Home • yadda yadda yadda • Ooooohh!) 01:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Definitely not top. I could see high, but it begs the question of whether we do importance by basin or by overall. If it's overall, then I'd rather have Ioke as Mid, given how many more notable storms should be high or top. If it's by basin, then High is appropriate, since Ioke was one of the most notable storms in the EPAC. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with high importance. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- Mid's fine. There wasn't that much to write about.Potapych (talk) 03:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- There's plenty to write about. By Mid, do you mean on a basin scale, or a worldwide scale? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- Judged against the project, as importance grades should be. Potapych (talk) 03:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- The CPAC is still part of the project. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think Potapych means that the importance should be project-wide, not based on individual basins. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- Actully i would disagree with Potapych and go for basin by basin importance. Jason Rees (talk) 14:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think Potapych means that the importance should be project-wide, not based on individual basins. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- The CPAC is still part of the project. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- Judged against the project, as importance grades should be. Potapych (talk) 03:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- There's plenty to write about. By Mid, do you mean on a basin scale, or a worldwide scale? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- But that's not what the importance rating is for. Potapych (talk) 17:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- This is judged using both manual assessment by a WikiProject member, and "external interest" judged by links-in, interwiki links and number of hits. For more details, and the formula used to balance these parameters, see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/SelectionBot.
- By "priority" or "importance" of topics for the overall offline release, we generally mean to indicate the level of expectation or desire that the topic would be covered in a traditional encyclopedia.
- Interwiki links are usually high because of the various navboxes, button bars, redirects, lists, etc., but outside the project, these are usually very low. (This is referring to most articles that have been recently promoted or discussed to be promoted.) At least try not to make the job hard for the people who judge which articles should go in the offline release.
- Well, Potapych, I think that the basin reflects on the project-wide importance of the storm. --Dylan620 (Home • yadda yadda yadda • Ooooohh!) 17:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I feel this article belongs at top since it was a more noteworthy retired storm than Fico and Fefa. BTW, Potapych's idea may not work because Hernan gets much more attention than Calvin, which would make Hernan high and Calvin low . Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home , User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox
- Yellow Evan, how could you possibly call that an "answer" to anything, per your edit summary? We're talking about this storm only, and it is obviously not top worthy. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- This became a full-fledged debate behind my back in a matter of 14 hours. Since (after Juliancolton) Hurricanehink and Cyclonebiskit are OK with High-importance, I would normally feel comfortable with upping this to High, but because this is turning into a monstrous debate, I am opening a poll here. Please click on the link for more information. --Dylan620 (Home • yadda yadda yadda • Ooooohh!) 15:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Polls are evil. It's as simple as to whether the "High" means basin specific or worldwide. I am neutral for now. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Everyone, rather than fighting it out in the talk pages, we should do it on the project talk page. I brought a hopefully finalized discussion on it. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)