(43 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown) | |||
Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
===Use Unacceptable, Acceptable, Good, Featured=== |
===Use Unacceptable, Acceptable, Good, Featured=== |
||
<s>#As he who suggested it. {{User:Jeyo/sig}} 23:10, November 22, 2012 (UTC)</s> |
<s>#As he who suggested it. {{User:Jeyo/sig}} 23:10, November 22, 2012 (UTC)</s> |
||
+ | # Yes, at some point, I've now voted for every possible alternative here :P My mind's been changed by [http://lego.wikia.com/wiki/Review:79003_An_Unexpected_Gathering/GameMage this review] (and sorry for singling it out). I believe that it may be rated as "unacceptable", however, while it is very short, I think is still worthy of being here. It offers a thought out opinion of the set, discusses some of the features, and uses good spelling/grammar. Therefore, I propose that reviews like this (relatively short, but still well structured and well presented) should be acceptable (or maybe some sort of nicer name?), and what we are currently considering as acceptable to be good. Please note, this is only a vote for good for reviews, customs I still think is sort of up to the individual on how they feel about a custom, so I still support having no "good" rating for there. {{User:NightblazeSaber/sig}} 23:44, December 27, 2012 (UTC) |
||
+ | #:I would support for reviews only. I was mostly thinking about customs when I typed what I said below. {{User:Berrybrick/Sig}} 23:52, December 27, 2012 (UTC) |
||
===Use Unacceptable, Acceptable, Featured=== |
===Use Unacceptable, Acceptable, Featured=== |
||
# Though I do like it when custom articles have superlative information, I don't see the need for ''another'' denomination of articles. Now, if it was the quality of the custom, I'd understand, but that is not what I got out of it above. People who see that rating will most likely think that it is referring to the quality of the custom. Things like [[Custom:Purple Ghost|this]] would be rated "good", while things like [[Custom:Stinger Wagon|this]] would only be "acceptable". Actually, for that reason I'm not so happy using "acceptable" either, but I can't think of a word that would refer to the article's quality rather than the custom's, and I doubt that there is one that exists. {{User:Berrybrick/Sig}} 01:28, November 23, 2012 (UTC) |
# Though I do like it when custom articles have superlative information, I don't see the need for ''another'' denomination of articles. Now, if it was the quality of the custom, I'd understand, but that is not what I got out of it above. People who see that rating will most likely think that it is referring to the quality of the custom. Things like [[Custom:Purple Ghost|this]] would be rated "good", while things like [[Custom:Stinger Wagon|this]] would only be "acceptable". Actually, for that reason I'm not so happy using "acceptable" either, but I can't think of a word that would refer to the article's quality rather than the custom's, and I doubt that there is one that exists. {{User:Berrybrick/Sig}} 01:28, November 23, 2012 (UTC) |
||
# Per Berrybrick. Customs and reviews are different from articles; they are 'owned'. I think that people should be able to write what they want and not have to worry about whether it's going to be 'good' or not. {{User:Captain_Jag/sig1}} 17:53, November 30, 2012 (UTC) |
# Per Berrybrick. Customs and reviews are different from articles; they are 'owned'. I think that people should be able to write what they want and not have to worry about whether it's going to be 'good' or not. {{User:Captain_Jag/sig1}} 17:53, November 30, 2012 (UTC) |
||
− | # Actually, on reflection I think it may be easier to leave it as this. If a review/custom is "good", it can easily go to featured. Weak support for system with no good. {{User:NightblazeSaber/sig}} 04:58, December 26, 2012 (UTC) |
+ | #:<s># Actually, on reflection I think it may be easier to leave it as this. If a review/custom is "good", it can easily go to featured. Weak support for system with no good. {{User:NightblazeSaber/sig}} 04:58, December 26, 2012 (UTC)</s> |
# I'd been meaning to do this after Jag voted, as he convinced me, but I kept forgetting to. So...per Jag. :P {{User:Jeyo/sig}} 06:56, December 26, 2012 (UTC) |
# I'd been meaning to do this after Jag voted, as he convinced me, but I kept forgetting to. So...per Jag. :P {{User:Jeyo/sig}} 06:56, December 26, 2012 (UTC) |
||
===Comments=== |
===Comments=== |
||
Line 61: | Line 63: | ||
{{User:Jeyo/sig}} 23:22, November 22, 2012 (UTC) |
{{User:Jeyo/sig}} 23:22, November 22, 2012 (UTC) |
||
− | == |
+ | == CQM pages == |
− | + | I just got around to making [[Brickipedia:Custom Quality Moderators/Requests|the request page]] and I noticed we need a new template for the "Custom Classes" also we need redlinks made. {{User:Darth henry/Sig}} 22:12, November 29, 2012 (UTC) |
|
− | :* I can't find the old forum with a bunch of ideas for other QCG names, but I think that if we were to choose names they should be relative to classic themes. Space and either Pirates or Town/City, I think. {{User:Berrybrick/Sig}} 20:44, November 22, 2012 (UTC) |
||
− | :The edited list is here: |
||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
+ | |||
− |
*Crusaders |
||
⚫ | |||
− |
*Drones |
||
+ | {{archive |
||
− | *Good Wizards |
||
+ | |result=Reviews group named Dragon Knights, Customs group named Shadow Knights |
||
− |
*Henchmen |
||
+ | |content= |
||
⚫ | |||
+ | These names have passed: |
||
− | *Turaga |
||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
*Dragon Knights |
*Dragon Knights |
||
⚫ | |||
− | *Fixer Uppers |
||
− | *Zombie Lords |
||
+ | So we need to decide on which combination to use. The proposals were '''both''' medieval or '''both''' other themes. Dragon Knights (green) for reviews, Shadow Knights (red) for customs? |
||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
− | * Just some other ideas: |
||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
+ | # We already have the Crown ''Knights''. :P Let's focus on other themes. {{User:BrickfilmNut/sig}} |
||
− | ** The Fellowship |
||
− | + | # Different theme for each section would be better. --{{User:CzechMate/czech}} 23:42, December 30, 2012 (UTC) |
|
− | :: I'd oppose Fellowship for being a licensed faction. {{User:Berrybrick/Sig}} 23:20, November 29, 2012 (UTC) |
||
+ | === Dragon Knights and Shadow Knights === |
||
− | + | # {{User:Jeyo/sig}} 20:18, December 30, 2012 (UTC) |
|
− | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
− | * If you have other ideas, please add them to ''both'' lists (if appropriate for both). |
||
+ | # {{user:Awesomeknight1234/SigbyCP}} |
||
− | ===CQM=== |
||
+ | #* Knight, it's not like you do much work in forums - so why can you be voting? Sorry, it is just that I don't think a user who doesn't do much forum work should vote for a major thing. --{{User:CzechMate/czech}} 23:43, December 30, 2012 (UTC) |
||
− | ====Alpha Team
(±0)==== |
||
+ | #** I only do stuff in the forums if I think it's important, and I think this is important. {{user:Awesomeknight1234/SigbyCP}} |
||
− | ;Support |
||
+ | #** Your reasoning, Czech, baffles me. You're saying he shouldn't be voting in the forums because he doesn't often do so? And would you be saying the same thing if he'd voted in the Galaxy Squad section? {{User:Jeyo/sig}} 00:25, December 31, 2012 (UTC) |
||
− | ;Oppose |
||
+ | #*** Honestly, yes. I just think that you should vote on something like this when you don't do much forum stuff. {{unsigned|CzechMate}} |
||
− | ;Comments |
||
+ | #**** So how would you expect someone who doesn't often vote to vote regularly if they aren't supposed to vote? {{User:Jeyo/sig}} 00:57, December 31, 2012 (UTC) |
||
− | ====Crusaders
(+1)==== |
||
+ | # {{User:LazerzSoH/signature}} -If I can vote |
||
− | ;Support |
||
− | # |
+ | #: Anyone can vote (if they're a registered user) {{User:NightblazeSaber/sig}} 00:36, December 31, 2012 (UTC) |
+ | }} |
||
− | ;Oppose |
||
− | # I don't want to be called Crusaders for historical reasons - Crusaders were people who attacked people in their own land for being a different religeon. This is NOT what this group should be called. --{{User:CzechMate/czech}} 10:00, December 26, 2012 (UTC) |
||
− | ;Comments |
||
− | |||
− | ====Drones
(±0)==== |
||
− | ;Support |
||
− | ;Oppose |
||
− | ;Comments |
||
− | ====Fellowship
(-1)==== |
||
− | ;Support |
||
− | ;Oppose |
||
− | # Don't really want to see a licensed theme as a name for a user group {{User:NightblazeSaber/sig}} 04:58, December 26, 2012 (UTC) |
||
− | ;Comments |
||
− | ====Good Wizards
(±0)==== |
||
− | ;Support |
||
− | ;Oppose |
||
− | ;Comments |
||
⚫ | |||
− | ;Support |
||
− | # Different theme for each section, methinks. --{{User:CzechMate/czech}} 09:59, December 26, 2012 (UTC) |
||
− | ;Oppose |
||
− | ;Comments |
||
− | |||
− | ====Henchmen
(±0)==== |
||
− | ;Support |
||
− | ;Oppose |
||
− | ;Comments |
||
− | ====Royal Knights
(+1)==== |
||
− | ;Support |
||
⚫ | |||
− | ;Oppose |
||
− | ;Comments |
||
− | ====Turaga
(-1)==== |
||
− | ;Support |
||
− | ;Oppose |
||
⚫ | |||
− | ;Comments |
||
− | ====Dragon Knights
(+1)==== |
||
− | ;Support |
||
− | # Per Crusaders support. Would support Royal Knights and Dragon Knights moreso than the Crusaders. {{User:NightblazeSaber/sig}} 04:58, December 26, 2012 (UTC) |
||
− | ;Oppose |
||
− | ;Comments |
||
− | ====Fixer Uppers
(-1)==== |
||
− | ;Support |
||
− | ;Oppose |
||
− | # Not really LEGO related (it doesn't have to be, I'd just rather it to be, hence the oppose) {{User:NightblazeSaber/sig}} 04:58, December 26, 2012 (UTC) |
||
− | ;Comments |
||
⚫ | |||
− | ;Support |
||
− | # If we're going along with NBS's idea to keep it all Castle, Vladek's forces would do well in the customs section; they are red, after all {{C|Mixed in with black, of course}}. {{User:Jeyo/sig}} 07:06, December 26, 2012 (UTC) |
||
− | ;Oppose |
||
− | ;Comments |
||
− | ====Zombie Lords
(-1)==== |
||
− | ;Support |
||
− | ;Oppose |
||
− | # Not sure how this relates to LEGO at all... {{User:NightblazeSaber/sig}} 04:58, December 26, 2012 (UTC) |
||
− | ;Comments |
||
− | |||
− | ===RQM=== |
||
− | ====Alpha Team
(±0)==== |
||
− | ;Support |
||
− | ;Oppose |
||
− | ;Comments |
||
− | ====Crusaders
(+1)==== |
||
− | ;Support |
||
− | # I just think it'd be nice to have other Castle factions to kinda go with the existing Crown Knights, like being the same sort of thing, but different. {{User:NightblazeSaber/sig}} 04:58, December 26, 2012 (UTC) |
||
− | ;Oppose |
||
− | ;Comments |
||
− | ====Drones
(±0)==== |
||
− | ;Support |
||
− | ;Oppose |
||
− | ;Comments |
||
− | ====Fellowship
(-1)==== |
||
− | ;Support |
||
− | ;Oppose |
||
− | # Don't really want to see a licensed theme as a name for a user group {{User:NightblazeSaber/sig}} 04:58, December 26, 2012 (UTC) |
||
− | ;Comments |
||
− | ====Good Wizards
(±0)==== |
||
− | ;Support |
||
− | ;Oppose |
||
− | ;Comments |
||
− | ====Galaxy Squad (±0)==== |
||
− | ;Support |
||
− | ;Oppose |
||
− | ;Comments |
||
− | ====Henchmen
(±0)==== |
||
− | ;Support |
||
− | ;Oppose |
||
− | ;Comments |
||
− | ====Royal Knights
(+1)==== |
||
− | ;Support |
||
⚫ | |||
− | ;Oppose |
||
− | # I think we should reference different main LEGO themes in each group name, like my above support for Galaxy Squad for customs. --{{User:CzechMate/czech}} 10:03, December 26, 2012 (UTC) |
||
− | ;Comments |
||
− | |||
− | ====Turaga
(-1)==== |
||
− | ;Support |
||
− | ;Oppose |
||
− | # Per Fellowship oppose {{User:NightblazeSaber/sig}} 04:58, December 26, 2012 (UTC) |
||
− | ;Comments |
||
− | ====Dragon Knights
(+1)==== |
||
− | ;Support |
||
− | # Per Crusaders support. Would support Royal Knights and Dragon Knights moreso than the Crusaders. {{User:NightblazeSaber/sig}} 04:58, December 26, 2012 (UTC) |
||
− | # I like the idea of sticking with Castle. And the Dragon Knights do have some green in their signature colours, which would signify reviews. {{User:Jeyo/sig}} 07:10, December 26, 2012 (UTC) |
||
− | ;Oppose |
||
− | ;Comments |
||
− | ====Fixer Uppers
(-1)==== |
||
− | ;Support |
||
− | ;Oppose |
||
− | # Not really LEGO related (it doesn't have to be, I'd just rather it to be, hence the oppose) {{User:NightblazeSaber/sig}} 04:58, December 26, 2012 (UTC) |
||
− | ;Comments |
||
− | ====Zombie Lords
(-1)==== |
||
− | ;Support |
||
− | ;Oppose |
||
− | # Not sure how this relates to LEGO at all... {{User:NightblazeSaber/sig}} 04:58, December 26, 2012 (UTC) |
||
− | ;Comments |
||
− | |||
− | == CQM pages == |
||
− | I just got around to making [[Brickipedia:Custom Quality Moderators/Requests|the request page]] and I noticed we need a new template for the "Custom Classes" also we need redlinks made. {{User:Darth henry/Sig}} 22:12, November 29, 2012 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
⚫ |
Latest revision as of 23:49, 7 January 2013
What makes a Custom "Acceptable"?Having a somewhat filled in infobox, some categories and images of actual customs. Clone gunner commander jedi talk
Power Jim Talk Blogz12:48, 11/4/2012 12:48, November 4, 2012 (UTC) What is the criteria for a "Featured Custom"?
What makes a Review "Acceptable"?
What is the criteria for a "Featured Review"?
Comments
I think we should have three customs and reviews ratings. Acceptable, Good and Featured. I say this because some acceptable customs are at a higher level than others regarding the content. While some just have an infobox, lead section, images and a "promotional background", others have a all of the above and a minifigure gallery and a detailed description. Just an idea.
RatingsUse Unacceptable, Acceptable, Good, Featured
Use Unacceptable, Acceptable, Featured
Comments
CQM pagesI just got around to making the request page and I noticed we need a new template for the "Custom Classes" also we need redlinks made. Darth henry The Dojo Turtles! 22:12, November 29, 2012 (UTC)
Finishing Voting for names
|