Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gaelic games: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
Tag: Reply
Tag: Reply
Line 68: Line 68:
:::Hiya @[[User:Boardwalk.Koi|Boardwalk.Koi]]. Apologies. I read your note too quickly and misread/misunderstood your point. Or didn't pay enough attention to the difference between "high" and "top". In any event, I agree that [[Camogie]] and [[Ladies' Gaelic football]] are just as "important" (and in some cases perhaps more "important") than the other members of the [[:Category:Top-importance Gaelic games articles|"Top-importance Gaelic games" ranked/categorised articles]]. And, at least, cannot support a situation where individual sportspeople or venues are considered "top" importance, while an entire macro-level topic (like [[Camogie]]) is classified as lower/lesser. Definitely [[Camogie]] (and probably also [[Ladies' Gaelic football]]) should likely be re-ranked to the "top" [[User:Guliolopez|Guliolopez]] ([[User talk:Guliolopez|talk]]) 16:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
:::Hiya @[[User:Boardwalk.Koi|Boardwalk.Koi]]. Apologies. I read your note too quickly and misread/misunderstood your point. Or didn't pay enough attention to the difference between "high" and "top". In any event, I agree that [[Camogie]] and [[Ladies' Gaelic football]] are just as "important" (and in some cases perhaps more "important") than the other members of the [[:Category:Top-importance Gaelic games articles|"Top-importance Gaelic games" ranked/categorised articles]]. And, at least, cannot support a situation where individual sportspeople or venues are considered "top" importance, while an entire macro-level topic (like [[Camogie]]) is classified as lower/lesser. Definitely [[Camogie]] (and probably also [[Ladies' Gaelic football]]) should likely be re-ranked to the "top" [[User:Guliolopez|Guliolopez]] ([[User talk:Guliolopez|talk]]) 16:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
::::Grand I've made those rating changes now. [[User:Boardwalk.Koi|Boardwalk.Koi]] ([[User talk:Boardwalk.Koi|talk]]) 16:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
::::Grand I've made those rating changes now. [[User:Boardwalk.Koi|Boardwalk.Koi]] ([[User talk:Boardwalk.Koi|talk]]) 16:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
:::::Great. FYI. I also re-rated [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Celtic_cross&diff=prev&oldid=1197207208 two] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Duggan_Park&diff=prev&oldid=1197220929 articles] - as I do not see how either could possibly be considered as meeting the top-level criteria. ([[Duggan Park]] is "top", while Pearse/Semple/Breffni/Gaelic Grounds/Casement/etc are as much as two "rankings" lower in importance? Nope...) [[User:Guliolopez|Guliolopez]] ([[User talk:Guliolopez|talk]]) 17:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:08, 19 January 2024



Down v Donegal 23rd april 2023

this game is confirmed for Pairc Esler in newry at 2pm, and not a home game for donegal 2A02:C7E:2C72:4100:9802:1857:8D71:3720 (talk) 08:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Passage hurlers, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for merger to Category:Passage West hurlers. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:37, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly sourced. The name is rather Margaret Leacy. Xx236 (talk) 08:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed IMOS COUNTIES cleanup

Input sought on a possible big cleanup of a widespread minor issue: breaches of MOS:IMOS COUNTIES. This relates to all 32 traditional counties of Ireland, including the six counties of Northern Ireland.

The discussion is at WT:WikiProject Ireland#IMOS COUNTIES cleanup, where your input will be welcome. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:27, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Camogie and Ladies' football rating on project's importance scale

At present Camogie is rated as Mid-importance on the project's scale, while Ladies' Gaelic football is rated as Low-importance on the project's scale.

I think it's obvious enough they both should be rated as top-importance as I think they are both "a must-have for a print encyclopedia". Boardwalk.Koi (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I concur 100%. A "mid" rating might just about be justifiable (for either) in the context of WikiProject Ireland. But relative to this project (WikiProject Gaelic games) both are and should clearly be rated as "high" importance. The current rating, for Ladies' Gaelic football in particular, looks to have been an honest mistake/error along the way. If you changed either/both to "high", I can't imagine who would object (and what reasonable basis there could be for an objection). Guliolopez (talk) 20:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Guliolopez, thanks for your reply. I agree that there'd likely be no objections to a "high" importance rating for this project, but I think both should be given a "top" importance rating, in line with both the hurling and gaelic football pages.
I thought it prudent to seek a consensus before making any changes. Boardwalk.Koi (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya @Boardwalk.Koi. Apologies. I read your note too quickly and misread/misunderstood your point. Or didn't pay enough attention to the difference between "high" and "top". In any event, I agree that Camogie and Ladies' Gaelic football are just as "important" (and in some cases perhaps more "important") than the other members of the "Top-importance Gaelic games" ranked/categorised articles. And, at least, cannot support a situation where individual sportspeople or venues are considered "top" importance, while an entire macro-level topic (like Camogie) is classified as lower/lesser. Definitely Camogie (and probably also Ladies' Gaelic football) should likely be re-ranked to the "top" Guliolopez (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Grand I've made those rating changes now. Boardwalk.Koi (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great. FYI. I also re-rated two articles - as I do not see how either could possibly be considered as meeting the top-level criteria. (Duggan Park is "top", while Pearse/Semple/Breffni/Gaelic Grounds/Casement/etc are as much as two "rankings" lower in importance? Nope...) Guliolopez (talk) 17:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]