Changes: Brickipedia:QC/1680 Crusader's Cart

Latest revision as of 04:04, 25 June 2012

Brickipedia →

Quality Check Group

→

Archive

→ 1680 Crusader's Cart

1680 Crusader's Cart was rated Class 2 when it isn't even complete. I'd suggest we rate it a Class 4. Skdhjf^(Talk!) 15:17, June 15, 2011 (UTC)

Remove Class 2 Status

Skdhjf^(Talk!) 15:17, June 15, 2011 (UTC)
I reckon C3. - nxt

Keep Class 2 Status

Small set, small description. It covers the relevant content and has appropriate headings. I don't see a problem. Although it could do with a bit of a cleanup ("although for no real purpose" replaced with something else) NightblazeSaber 00:28, June 16, 2011 (UTC)
Small set, what else would go there O_o a jr 02:54, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
Per above. -Cligra Join the redlink war!

SKP4472 Talk [[Special:Editcount/SKP4472|Special:Editcount/SKP4472 Edits!]] Devoted Editor of Brickipedia 20:09, January 11, 2012 (UTC)

klag oer name that user 13:39, June 24, 2012 (UTC)
Per NBS Jag 03:28, June 25, 2012 (UTC)

Comments

Comment: Why not a compromise? Seems like a Class 3 to me...

Byzantium 3000![[Special:Editcount/Byzantium 3000|Special:Editcount/Byzantium 3000 edits!]] 21:27, June 16, 2011 (UTC)

Per above. Shall I make it a Class 3 then? Skdhjf^(Talk!) 22:43, June 16, 2011 (UTC)
- I actually agree, I'd like to see it as Class 3. -N B P 14:19, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

My vote's still for Class 2- I fail to see how this doesn't comply with the MoS or how it's lacking in content. NightblazeSaber 02:51, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
Off-topic: Should we be using different headers now we have multiple ratings, eg "Downgrade to Class 4 Status", "Downgrade to Class 3 Status", "Keep Class 2 Status"? So we know which rating we're going to change it to? NightblazeSaber 02:52, June 17, 2011 (UTC)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{Forumheader/QC}}
+{{Forumheader/QCA}}
 <!-- Please put your content under this paragraph.  Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ -->
@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 ;Remove Class 2 Status
 # {{User:Tatooine/SigT}} 15:17, June 15, 2011 (UTC)
+# {{RG}} I reckon C3. {{User:UltrasonicNXT/Signature}}
 ;Keep Class 2 Status
 # {{RG}} Small set, small description. It covers the relevant content and has appropriate headings. I don't see a problem. Although it could do with a bit of a cleanup ("although for no real purpose" replaced with something else) {{User:Nighthawk leader/sig}} 00:28, June 16, 2011 (UTC)
 #Small set, what else would go there O_o {{User:Ajraddatz/sig}} 02:54, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
+#Per above. {{User:Cligra/Sig}}
+# {{RG}} {{User:SKP4472/sig2}} 20:09, January 11, 2012 (UTC)
+# {{RG}}  {{User:Mr. Minifigure/sig}} 13:39, June 24, 2012 (UTC)
+# {{RG}} Per NBS {{User:Captain_Jag/sig1}} 03:28, June 25, 2012 (UTC)
 ;Comments
 :*'''Comment:''' Why not a compromise? Seems like a Class 3 to me... {{User:Fudgepie/sig}} 21:27, June 16, 2011 (UTC)
 :*Per above. Shall I make it a Class 3 then?  {{User:Tatooine/SigT}} 22:43, June 16, 2011 (UTC)
+:**I actually agree, I'd like to see it as Class 3. -{{User:Nerfblasterpro/sig1}} 14:19, January 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * My vote's still for Class 2- I fail to see how this doesn't comply with the MoS or how it's lacking in content. {{User:Nighthawk leader/sig}} 02:51, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * Off-topic: Should we be using different headers now we have multiple ratings, eg "Downgrade to Class 4 Status", "Downgrade to Class 3 Status", "Keep Class 2 Status"? So we know which rating we're going to change it to? {{User:Nighthawk leader/sig}} 02:52, June 17, 2011 (UTC)