I'd like to propose a new rating, which may be unecessary and a waste of a forum. A "2f" rating (or Class 2, future set/minifigure/other article). Basically, the background of the Class 3 circle, but with a 2 on it. We have articles like Solomon Blaze which look short and at Class 4 standard, but are actually technically sort of Class 2, as it covers absolutely everything we know about the minifigure. On the other end of the scale, we have articles on future items which are being rated Class 2, yet there is the distinct possibility that there are things which aren't actually being covered in the article (minifigure back printing, or hidden play functions in the set).
So basically, I was thinking it might be a good idea to have a rating that just says "everything we know so far is covered in the article" (and has no spelling issues, etc)? NightblazeSaber 00:22, November 10, 2012 (UTC)
- Seems fairly useless to me - this would only be needed for new year sets. Why not just put a "contested" rating to it? --Czech 00:28, November 10, 2012 (UTC)
Well...I'm of two minds about this. It seems like a good idea to have a "temporary class 2" rating, but on the other hand once more information comes out, we'd have to find every page that had that rating and change it appropriately. What with the new parts numbering system going on and the Customs and Reviews QCGs, I don't think we need more ratings introduced at this point.
Jeyo Lord VladekTalk The Forge 00:40, November 10, 2012 (UTC)
Darth henry The Dojo Turtles! 00:46, November 10, 2012 (UTC)
@ Czech- sorry, I don't understand your reasoning at all :S Totally ok with you opposing it though :) @Jeyo- yeah, a lot is going on, which is one of the reasons why I didn't like bringing it up. However- without it- how should articles like this be rated? (and not meaning to do this because it's your work, it's just the first one I could find since it's in the RC :P) Obviously, it will have back printing (all clones to date have), and a head of some kind, so it's not technically "complete". Yet it describes absolutely everything we know about the minifigure, personally I don't think it should be a mere c3 :S Also finding articles with that rating won't be a problem- all rated articles are in categories (some of them hidden), this would have its own category, listing all of the articles with the rating. NightblazeSaber 00:49, November 10, 2012 (UTC)
- You've convinced me. I support a temporary class 2 rating. :P
Jeyo Lord VladekTalk The Forge 00:51, November 10, 2012 (UTC)
@NBS I mean it like Jeyo said in his first comment. And we'd have no use of it when there is nothing - and contested ultimately covers it. --Czech 00:52, November 10, 2012 (UTC)
- How? Contested articles are those which don't comply to standards and should only stay contested for a couple of days until the QC forum is closed, where the article's rating is either kept or downgraded, this is a completely different issue. And when there are no known future sets, then of course no article will have the rating- but why does it matter that no article has that rating? NightblazeSaber 02:08, November 10, 2012 (UTC)
But wait - will we still get F12 c2 points with the new rating?
Jeyo Lord VladekTalk The Forge 00:57, November 10, 2012 (UTC)
- (this isn't relevant to general editing ;) if it goes through, I'll add info there NightblazeSaber 02:08, November 10, 2012 (UTC))
- Sounds fine to me. --Berrybrick (Talk) 02:13, November 10, 2012 (UTC)