User talk:81.155.80.244

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. - Gilliam (talk) 15:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of assessment template on Talk:Positional asphyxia

Please see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment to understand what the ratings mean. From the article history and your edit summaries, I'm assuming you are upset that an article you have contributed to is rated as Low-importance. Note that this rating refers to the topic, not the quality of the article. That the article is rated as Start class is simply because the person who assessed the article deemed the content to be incomplete. I don't think anyone would object to you increasing the rating to C-class based on the guidelines at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. But please note, the assessment template is an important part of Wikipedia's quality assessment structure, and repeated removal of it will likely be considered a blockable offense. 66.57.4.17 (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Literally anybody can assess an article or modify an articles current assessment levels (that includes you!). The person who originally assessed the article is User talk:WhatamIdoing (she did so in this edit). I'm sure that she would be more than happy to discuss with you why she chose start/low -- why not go chat with her about the most appropriate importance rating. Judging by the importance guidelines at WikiProject Medicine -- Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Assessment#Importance_scale -- the Low rating could be because the article "cover[s] a specific part of a more important article," in this case asphyxia. 66.57.4.17 (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I'm sorry that you're unhappy with Wikipedia's rating system. The purpose is to figure out which articles are "finished" (or nearly so) and which ones need more attention. Positional asphyxia is a short article -- perhaps a "perfect stub", in Wikipedia-speak -- but it simply does not meet the requirements for the next highest quality class (e.g., it doesn't divide the material into subsections, and thus doesn't have the required structure). I don't control the quality rating system; if you want to propose changes to it, then you need to talk to the WP:1.0 team.

As for the importance, WP:WikiProject Medicine always rates rare medical problems, like this one, as lower importance than common medical problems. The fact that positional asphyxia is rare -- and therefore not a subject that Wikipedia needs to have a good quality article on right away -- is what drives the "low-importance" rating. If you think of this rating as "How often do people read this article", then you'll have the general idea. Positional asphyxia doesn't appear in the list of the 1,000 most popular medicine-related pages; almost no rare conditions do. If you think that improving this article should be of noticeably more importance than the typical rare medical issue, then please feel free to leave a note at WP:MEDA to request a reassessment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.