Brickipedia

READ MORE

Brickipedia
Register
Advertisement
Forums - Review & Customs QCG
This page is waiting to be archived by an administrator. Please do not edit the contents of this page.


This forum is dedicated to the discussion about customs and review ratings and moderators. Sections which have already been closed and implemented can be seen here.

What makes a Custom "Acceptable"?

Having a somewhat filled in infobox, some categories and images of actual customs. Clone gunner commander jedi talk

  • Oh yeah, forgot to say everything currently in BC:MOR should obviously be included NightblazeSaber 23:27, November 2, 2012 (UTC)
  • What are we doing to make the BC:MOR page more accessible to other users. I mean are we adding links to it to Custom nomination pages and other Custom-related articles. Should we also have a link to it in the Policies template? -

Power Jim Talk Blogz12:48, 11/4/2012 12:48, November 4, 2012 (UTC)

What is the criteria for a "Featured Custom"?

  • Must not contain any spelling errors? NightblazeSaber 23:16, November 2, 2012 (UTC)
  • Must use correct grammar, have the correct categories and infobox, that has been filled in as much as possible, including a link to the user who made the custom's userpage and also feature a little bit explaining what the custom is and images of actual customs and not just official minifigures with text saying what they want the custom to be. Clone gunner commander jedi talk
    • I'm pretty sure the only categories we have are Category:Custom Sets/Themes/Minifigures, and they're all automatically added with an infobox, so it may be best to leave that out (otherwise people will start double-categorising pages = bad). The rest sounds good to me though NightblazeSaber 23:49, November 2, 2012 (UTC)

What makes a Review "Acceptable"?

What is the criteria for a "Featured Review"?

  • Must not contain any spelling errors? NightblazeSaber 23:16, November 2, 2012 (UTC)
    • I think it should just be the same as Acceptable, except that it's been voted through as a featured. Maybe no spelling errors though. Jag 23:23, November 7, 2012 (UTC)

Comments

  • Honestly, I really don't know :S NightblazeSaber 23:16, November 2, 2012 (UTC)
  • Added UR, AR, UC and AC ratings to {{Rating}}, which can now be used. Note to RQM members- rating templates must be placed inside noinclude tags with the semantic stuff. Thanks. NightblazeSaber 22:10, November 21, 2012 (UTC)
  • Could we get a bot to add {{Rating|unrated}} to all reviews and customs pages? --Berrybrick (Talk) 20:47, November 22, 2012 (UTC)
  • If this is to be done, it must be added inside <noinclude> tags for reviews though please, otherwise bad things would happen. (sorry if I'm going on too much about this) NightblazeSaber 22:17, November 22, 2012 (UTC)
  • I added {{Rating|AC}} to one of my customs. The category "acceptable customs" appeared, but the template at the top of the page didn't. :S

Jeyo Lord VladekTalk The Forge 22:20, November 22, 2012 (UTC)

    • Would you mind trying again? Everything seems to be working fine in the tests I've done. I know on Monobook, ratings sometimes just don't show up occasionally, then you reload the page and everything's fine :S NightblazeSaber 22:41, November 22, 2012 (UTC)
      • Wait, AC, I was thinking AR, sorry. Taking a look at it now NightblazeSaber 22:42, November 22, 2012 (UTC)
        • Should be fixed NightblazeSaber 22:43, November 22, 2012 (UTC)
          • Yeah, it's good now. Thanks :)

Jeyo Lord VladekTalk The Forge 22:45, November 22, 2012 (UTC)

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. Jeyo Lord VladekTalk The Forge 22:49, November 22, 2012 (UTC)

  • Either that or raise the AC standards, I would say.

Jeyo Lord VladekTalk The Forge 22:49, November 22, 2012 (UTC)

Jeyo Lord VladekTalk The Forge 22:54, November 22, 2012 (UTC)

    • Yeah, I think that was suggested up above- I'll set up a vote for what to use NightblazeSaber 23:06, November 22, 2012 (UTC)
  • Category:Unrated Reviews and Category:Unrated Customs created. These cats will appear when {{Rating|unrated}} is used for reviews or customs (same unrated icon will appear though) NightblazeSaber 23:11, November 22, 2012 (UTC)
    • Looks good. A bot owner could get those all up.

Jeyo Lord VladekTalk The Forge 23:24, November 22, 2012 (UTC)

Ratings

Use Unacceptable, Acceptable, Good, Featured

#As he who suggested it. Jeyo Lord VladekTalk The Forge 23:10, November 22, 2012 (UTC)

Use Unacceptable, Acceptable, Featured

  1. 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 this would be rated "good", while things like 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. --Berrybrick (Talk) 01:28, November 23, 2012 (UTC)
  2. 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. Jag 17:53, November 30, 2012 (UTC)
  3. 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. NightblazeSaber 04:58, December 26, 2012 (UTC)
  4. I'd been meaning to do this after Jag voted, as he convinced me, but I kept forgetting to. So...per Jag. :P

Jeyo Lord VladekTalk The Forge 06:56, December 26, 2012 (UTC)

Comments

  • Can't say I'm too bothered either way :) Things that will need to be discussed though if good is chosen-
    • What makes an article "good"?
    • How will "good" be decided (assigned by C/RQM or through a vote like FC/R?
NightblazeSaber 23:06, November 22, 2012 (UTC)
  • How does this sound?
    • An acceptable custom could be anywhere from this level to this. An infobox, a lead section and at least one image must be included as the minimum.
    • Good customs could look somewhat like this, with an infobox, a lead section that tells who and when it was made, a detailed description, an optional background/promotional background and optional notes, gallery and external links sections.
    • Featured customs are just "good" customs that have awesome designs that people like. :P

Jeyo Lord VladekTalk The Forge 23:22, November 22, 2012 (UTC)

Other Names

  • Do we want to bother with other names for these groups (like Crown Knights)? Only thing is, they'll need their own logos, so for that reason maybe it would be worth doing? NightblazeSaber 22:22, November 21, 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. --Berrybrick (Talk) 20:44, November 22, 2012 (UTC)
The edited list is here:
  • Alpha Team



*Crusaders 
*Drones

  • Good Wizards


*Henchmen

  • Royal Knights

  • Turaga
  • Dragon Knights
  • Fixer Uppers
  • Zombie Lords

Jag 18:32, November 23, 2012 (UTC)

  • Just some other ideas:
    • Galaxy Squad
    • The Fellowship
Unless we want to stick to a Castle theme to these groups. NightblazeSaber 16:51, November 28, 2012 (UTC)
I'd oppose Fellowship for being a licensed faction. --Berrybrick (Talk) 23:20, November 29, 2012 (UTC)
@NBS: If we do that, I'm all for The Shadow Knights. :P

Jeyo Lord VladekTalk The Forge 06:58, December 26, 2012 (UTC)

Votes for names

  • If you have other ideas, please add them to both lists (if appropriate for both).

CQM

Alpha Team
 (±0)

Support
Oppose
Comments

Crusaders
 (-1)

Support
  1. 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. NightblazeSaber 04:58, December 26, 2012 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. 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. --Czech 10:00, December 26, 2012 (UTC)
  2. Per Czech. I don't know what LEGO was thinking naming a faction that. :/ --Berrybrick (Talk) 15:23, December 26, 2012 (UTC)
Comments

Drones
 (±0)

Support
Oppose
Comments

Fellowship
 (-2)

Support
Oppose
  1. Don't really want to see a licensed theme as a name for a user group NightblazeSaber 04:58, December 26, 2012 (UTC)
  2. Per NBS --Berrybrick (Talk) 15:23, December 26, 2012 (UTC)
  3. Per NBS Jag 18:53, December 26, 2012 (UTC)
Comments

Good Wizards
 (±0)

Support
Oppose
Comments

Galaxy Squad (±0)

Support
  1. Different theme for each section, methinks. --Czech 09:59, December 26, 2012 (UTC)
Oppose
Comments

Henchmen
 (±0)

Support
Oppose
Comments

Royal Knights

 (+1)

Support
  1. Per Crusaders support NightblazeSaber 04:58, December 26, 2012 (UTC)
  2. Per NBS on Crusaders, except this one doesn't have a religious meaning. No more than Crown Knights, at least. --Berrybrick (Talk) 15:24, December 26, 2012 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Per other opposes --Czech 10:11, December 26, 2012 (UTC)
Comments

Turaga
 (-1)

Support
Oppose
  1. Per Fellowship oppose NightblazeSaber 04:58, December 26, 2012 (UTC)
    But it isn't a licensed name.... --Berrybrick (Talk) 15:25, December 26, 2012 (UTC)
Comments

Dragon Knights
 (+1)

Support
  1. Per Crusaders support. Would support Royal Knights and Dragon Knights moreso than the Crusaders. NightblazeSaber 04:58, December 26, 2012 (UTC)
  2. Per what I said about Royal Knights. --Berrybrick (Talk) 15:25, December 26, 2012 (UTC)
Oppose
Comments

Fixer Uppers
 (-2)

Support
Oppose
  1. Not really LEGO related (it doesn't have to be, I'd just rather it to be, hence the oppose) NightblazeSaber 04:58, December 26, 2012 (UTC)
  2. We aren't really fixing anything.... --Berrybrick (Talk) 15:25, December 26, 2012 (UTC)
  3. Jag 18:53, December 26, 2012 (UTC)
Comments

The Shadow Knights (+1)

Support
  1. 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 (Mixed in with black, of course).

Jeyo Lord VladekTalk The Forge 07:06, December 26, 2012 (UTC)

  1. Jag 18:53, December 26, 2012 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Per my other opposes. --Czech 10:11, December 26, 2012 (UTC)
Comments

Zombie Lords
 (-1)

Support
Oppose
  1. Not sure how this relates to LEGO at all... NightblazeSaber 04:58, December 26, 2012 (UTC)
Comments

RQM

Alpha Team
 (±0)

Support
  1. Per my support to Galaxy Squad in CQM name ideas. --Czech 10:05, December 26, 2012 (UTC)
Oppose
Comments

Crusaders
 (+1)

Support
  1. 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. NightblazeSaber 04:58, December 26, 2012 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Per my other crusaders' oppose. --Czech 10:11, December 26, 2012 (UTC)
Comments

Drones
 (±0)

Support
Oppose
Comments

Fellowship
 (-1)

Support
Oppose
  1. Don't really want to see a licensed theme as a name for a user group NightblazeSaber 04:58, December 26, 2012 (UTC)
  2. Jag 18:53, 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
  1. Per Crusaders support NightblazeSaber 04:58, December 26, 2012 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. I think we should reference different main LEGO themes in each group name, like my above support for Galaxy Squad for customs. --Czech 10:03, December 26, 2012 (UTC)
Comments

Turaga
 (-1)

Support
Oppose
  1. Per Fellowship oppose NightblazeSaber 04:58, December 26, 2012 (UTC)
Comments

Dragon Knights
 (+1)

Support
  1. Per Crusaders support. Would support Royal Knights and Dragon Knights moreso than the Crusaders. NightblazeSaber 04:58, December 26, 2012 (UTC)
  2. I like the idea of sticking with Castle. And the Dragon Knights do have some green in their signature colours, which would signify reviews.

Jeyo Lord VladekTalk The Forge 07:10, December 26, 2012 (UTC)

  1. Jag 18:53, December 26, 2012 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Different range of themes in the names - QCG for main, which is castle, and hence my oppose ot Crusaders, and most others - different themes, please. --Czech 10:10, December 26, 2012 (UTC)
Comments

Fixer Uppers
 (-1)

Support
Oppose
  1. Not really LEGO related (it doesn't have to be, I'd just rather it to be, hence the oppose) NightblazeSaber 04:58, December 26, 2012 (UTC)
Comments

Zombie Lords
 (-1)

Support
Oppose
  1. Not sure how this relates to LEGO at all... NightblazeSaber 04:58, December 26, 2012 (UTC)
Comments

CQM pages

I 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)

I don't think we're ready to form a member requests page yet. We still need a name and a template. We're also debating the various classes - how many there should be and such.

Jeyo Lord VladekTalk The Forge 22:16, November 29, 2012 (UTC)

Advertisement