Forum:Aftermath of the Ratings changeover

Forums: Index →

Administration

→ Aftermath of the Ratings changeover

This forum is a continuation of Forum:Redoing the way we rate articles

Hi, thought I'd start a new forum about this, because the old one was getting way to long. Anyway, here's what has been done to start the changeover:

• Rating template modified to accomodate for new ratings, and to be different in appearance for Oasis skins
• GA Nom rules re-written
• Brickipedia:Content Improvement and Brickipedia:Articles for Rating created

Here's what I can think of left to do:

• Formally merge the BOR/CCG groups, and get them to choose a new name
• Decide which icons we're going to be using
• Rewrite FA rules
• Entry requirements for the new group

If there's anything I've forgotten, or if you have any concerns about what's been done so far (not about things already voted on, just any implementation of what was voted through), please put them down here. Also, I've pasted over the votes from the previous discussion, and if we need any new votes, feel free to add them too. NightblazeSaber 07:05, March 16, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

What is BOR?--dog4591/Mugsiedoodle/TheParadoxBug 15:15, April 5, 2011 (UTC)

Voting

Icon Pictures

Note: Please see here for information about the suggested icons.

Use the icons suggested by Ajraddatz

1. Ajraddatz 00:33, March 1, 2011 (UTC)
2. Except for the FA logo. NightblazeSaber 01:02, March 1, 2011 (UTC)

SKP4472 Talk [[Special:Editcount/SKP4472|Special:Editcount/SKP4472 Edits!]] Devoted Editor of Brickipedia 07:03, March 1, 2011 (UTC)

1. Per Nighthawk. -Nerfblasterpro: Can you believe it's only been a year? 18:24, March 16, 2011 (UTC)
2. Per NHL, the gold brick seems better.  Samdo994 talk contribs  20:41, March 16, 2011 (UTC)
3. --dog4591/Mugsiedoodle/TheParadoxBug 15:16, April 5, 2011 (UTC)

Use the expanding icons suggested by Captain Jag

1. --- A Kind of Madness-- Kingcjc 19:02, February 25, 2011 (UTC)
2. Lego lord 01:08, March 1, 2011 (UTC)

Use existing icons at Brickipedia:Quality control overviews

#NightblazeSaber 05:39, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

These were the ones that I suggested :3 Ajraddatz 05:40, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

Except the FA one. Sorry, I'm just really against the red brick NightblazeSaber 05:46, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

No, I wasn't suggesting the red brick... I said somewhere that that was just a placeholder for a gold brick which I couldn't find. Ajraddatz 00:15, March 3, 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about that. Vote changed back NightblazeSaber 00:34, March 3, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, I should really change that. Ajraddatz 02:15, March 3, 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Would this vote be for both skins? We could run into some technical issues due to the size of the bricks if it was used on the Monobook skin if it's voted through to continue using the old scheme. NightblazeSaber 09:46, February 26, 2011 (UTC)
• I'm happy to use the expanding icons suggested by Captain Jag if need be, just as long as we don't use the 2-by-4 icons suggested by Captain Jag, I don't mind.

SKP4472 Talk [[Special:Editcount/SKP4472|Special:Editcount/SKP4472 Edits!]] Devoted Editor of Brickipedia 12:36, April 2, 2011 (UTC)

New name for CCG/BOR group

We need a new name for this. I think that the CCG/BOR type name should either be QCG (quality control group), QCO (quality control officers), AQC (article quality control) or something like that. For the other name... I would be happy to continue with either of the old names (Agents and Imperial Guard) but maybe we need a new name. Opinions? Jag 21:19, March 4, 2011 (UTC)

• Something along those lines definitely sounds good, I'd be happy with any of them, although I was thinking maybe Quality Check Reviewers as a merged name between CCG and BOR, just a thought. About the other name, I still think Imperial Agents sounds great, but not really LEGO-related, and "quality control group (or whatever) imperial agents" doesn't sound too good, I think a one-word name works best. NightblazeSaber 07:48, March 5, 2011 (UTC)
• By the way, the merged group consists of:
  • Ajraddatz *
  • BobaFett2 *†
  • Captain Jag †
  • Cpatain Rex *
  • Construction Worker †
  • GameGear360 †
  • Gladiatoring †
  • Kingcjc † (Resigned)
  • Lcawte †
  • LegOtaku *†
  • Mariofighter3 *†
  • Nerfblasterpro *
  • Nighthawk leader *†
    • * Indicates a former BOR member
    • † Indicates a former CCG member

NightblazeSaber 07:05, March 16, 2011 (UTC)

I know this is a bit off topic but, please can I be a member of the 'new group'? SKP4472 Talk [[Special:Editcount/SKP4472|Special:Editcount/SKP4472 Edits!]] Devoted Editor of Brickipedia 07:33, March 16, 2011 (UTC)

• Yeah, sorry, I meant to put entry requirements down as another topic for discussion. I'll add this now. NightblazeSaber 08:12, March 16, 2011 (UTC)
• I'd like to resign from the group :) --- insert quote here -- Kingcjc 16:47, March 17, 2011 (UTC)
  • Ok, but if you want to come back, you've got my vote (or whatever it'll be) to get back in. NightblazeSaber 00:48, March 18, 2011 (UTC)
• Suggested names so far:
  • "Formal" name: Quality Control Group (QCG), Quality Control Officers (QCO), Article Quality Control (AQC), Quality Check Reviewers (QCR)
  • "Other" name: Imperial Guards, Agents, Imperial Agents

I'd say QCG would be my favourite. For the "other" name, I would be fine with either of the old names, as I said before. Jag 00:57, March 19, 2011 (UTC)

I'd be voting for QCG or QCR, and opposing AQC, just becuase it doesn't say it's some form of group. As for the other name, here's a list of the CCG name vote (+Imperial Guards): Alpha Team, Agents, Clone Cadet Troop, Clone Patrollers, Crown Knights, Crusaders, Dragon Knights, Drones, Fixer Uppers, Good Wizards, Henchmen, Imperial Guards, Jedi Masters, Jedi Council Members, Little Green Men, Royal Knights, Turaga, Zombie Lords. NightblazeSaber 00:24, March 24, 2011 (UTC)

We haven't had any more suggestions, so I've set up a vote: Jag 02:30, March 28, 2011 (UTC)

Can I be part of this new group? The Legend of Swipe Talk Alien Conquest! --- The dawn is coming...

• Requests can be made here. About the below vote, would it be all right to close it April 4 (1 week from the start date)? At this point it seems we have some clear winners... NightblazeSaber 08:05, April 1, 2011 (UTC)

Vote

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was Formal name: Quality Check Group. Other name: Crown Knights "Formal" Name QCG (Quality Check Group) Support NightblazeSaber 06:00, March 28, 2011 (UTC) Jag 07:20, March 28, 2011 (UTC) SKP4472 Talk [[Special:Editcount/SKP4472|Special:Editcount/SKP4472 Edits!]] Devoted Editor of Brickipedia 17:04, March 28, 2011 (UTC) ajr 19:39, March 29, 2011 (UTC) Oppose Comments AQC (Article Quality Control) Support Oppose Per reason in above comments NightblazeSaber 06:00, March 28, 2011 (UTC) Comments QCO (Quality Control Officers) Support Oppose Comments QCR (Quality Check Reviewers) Support NightblazeSaber 06:00, March 28, 2011 (UTC) Oppose Comments "Other" Name Alpha Team Support Oppose Comments Agents Support Jag 07:20, March 28, 2011 (UTC) Oppose Comments Cheerleaders Support suits Ajr & NHL well :P - cjc 19:52, March 29, 2011 (UTC) Oppose ShermanTheMythran Comments Clone Cadet Troop Support Oppose Not a fan of licensed names, just think the name should say "LEGO", not "Star Wars" NightblazeSaber 06:00, March 28, 2011 (UTC) Comments Clone Patrollers Support Oppose Per above vote NightblazeSaber 06:00, March 28, 2011 (UTC) Comments Crown Knights Support It could work NightblazeSaber 06:00, March 28, 2011 (UTC) Jag 07:20, March 28, 2011 (UTC) ShermanTheMythran Oppose Comments Crusaders Support Sounds nice. LEGO Lord Talk [[Special:Editcount/Lego lord|Special:Editcount/Lego lord Edits!]] ---- LEGO LOTR is coming! Oppose Comments Dragon Knights Support Oppose I don't like the Dragon Knights. This might get personal.... :P JK.ShermanTheMythran Comments Drones Support Oppose Comments Fixer Uppers Support Oppose Comments Good Wizards Support Oppose Comments Henchmen Support Oppose Comments Imperial Guards Support Oppose Comments Jedi Masters Support Oppose Per Clone Cadet Troop vote NightblazeSaber 06:00, March 28, 2011 (UTC) Comments Jedi Council Members Support Oppose Per above vote NightblazeSaber Comments Lawn Gnomes Support Oppose Comments Little Green Men Support Oppose Comments Maraca Men Support Oppose Comments Royal Knights Support Jag 07:20, March 28, 2011 (UTC) Oppose Comments Turaga Support Oppose Comments Zombie Lords Support Oppose Comments

Entry Requirements for the new group

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was requests can be made, voting by new group members only Ok, so what are we going to do if we want to gain group members? Here's what the BOR and CCG formerly had: To become a BOR member, a special vote was set up when it was agreed upon that more BOR members were required. To become a CCG member, a user had to successfully nominate 10 articles for complete status in a row. So, what should we do now? Ideas I can think of would be: Use one of the above Make a page similar to requests for the normal "request for *** rights" pages Personally, I'd be happy to make it 10 complete in a row (same as the CCG criteria), or setting up a requests page. However, if we did have the requests page, I believe that the current group members should have a special vote, where if that doesn't pass, they don't get in, nomatter how many other votes they get. Now, I know Ajr's going to jump in ("we're all equal, blah blah blah" :D:D), but surely we need some sort of "expert opinion" to confirm that user is capable of critically assessing whether an article follows the MoS (for granting completeness), and if it doesn't, how close the article is to it (for Class 5-3 ratings). NightblazeSaber 08:12, March 16, 2011 (UTC) For this, I'd support a cabal-approved appointment system - a vote within the existing group to see if the applicant is an acceptable addition. Ajraddatz 13:57, March 16, 2011 (UTC) Haha, per Nighthawk. I prefer not to change the rules much, but that's just my opinion. I don't care how much changes on this particular subject. -Nerfblasterpro: Can you believe it's only been a year? 16:44, March 17, 2011 (UTC) So, if there aren't any objections within 24 hours, ok to pass this? NightblazeSaber 00:24, March 24, 2011 (UTC)

History

• Hi, I was wondering if we could add the following responsibility to this group- adding/editing {{History}} to the talk page of the article in question whenever the class of the article changes. I know this isn't exactly a "fun" thing to do, and it can take a bit of time to get used to using the template, but (to me at least) it makes it much easier to keep track of what's been going on with the article, and if the rating is in fact correct (ie, no non QCG member has changed the rating since there's a link to when the rating was changed). Anyway, just thought I'd ask. NightblazeSaber 00:11, April 5, 2011 (UTC)
  • Although it may be a pain, it will probably be worth it. I don't see why not.

SKP4472 Talk [[Special:Editcount/SKP4472|Special:Editcount/SKP4472 Edits!]] Devoted Editor of Brickipedia 15:47, April 5, 2011 (UTC)

• • We could just have a bot do it.--dog4591/Mugsiedoodle/TheParadoxBug 16:07, April 5, 2011 (UTC)
    • Interesting idea, but how would a bot know when the ratings changed/when an AFS failed? NightblazeSaber 01:23, April 6, 2011 (UTC)
      • The answer is quite simple. Someone codes a java script thing that will write the name of the article to a page when those events happen and then the bot will read the page when the bot is run and put the link on the talk page of the article. --dog4591/Mugsiedoodle/TheParadoxBug 17:55, April 6, 2011 (UTC)
        • I'll just ask Ajr or Lcawte if it can be done. Jag 19:26, April 6, 2011 (UTC)