Brickipedia

READ MORE

Brickipedia
Brickipedia
Brickipedia
41,403
pages
in: Administration

Forum:Ratings tweak

Sign in to edit
Forums: Index →
Administration
→ Ratings tweak

Even though I wasn't here, I was still thinking about a couple of potential improvements (I know, pretty weird since I wasn't intending on coming back). Anyway, I've forgotten most of the ideas, but I was wondering if, instead of having all new articles start at Class 5, if we should have an "unrated" rating, with a '?' icon or something. That way, there's a handy category for the QCG to go through and rate the unrated articles, and a new article doesn't necessarily have to be a bad one. Just an idea. Also, should date articles be even rated (eg May 2)? NightblazeSaber 03:16, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

  • Support both ideas. (I knew you couldn't really leave). Jag 03:19, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
  • I really like the unrated idea. ajr 03:23, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. It surprises me somewhat that nobody made the unrated template. FB100Z • talk • contribs 03:28, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

While we're all here, can we make the QCG a bit less of a cabal? Don't misinterpret me, I don't have any intention of joining. FB100Z • talk • contribs 03:28, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

What do you think we should do? If we just let anyone in, then anybody could just go around changing ratings. Jag 03:35, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
In this case, I think that a cabal is needed. Keep in mind that basically anyone who has demonstrated that they have a clue what is going on can get into the group as it is - but it wouldn't be a good thing if, say, this guy were able to get in easily ;) ajr 03:40, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
Per Ajr. P.S. like my new sig? Jag 03:41, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
Per Jag and Ajr, if you've proven you're active in successfully nominating articles for rating, you're pretty much in. What's the problem with that? (and cool new sig Jag :D) NightblazeSaber 03:44, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Jag 03:46, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
"The user must have made at least 1000 mainspace edits, and have been on the wiki for at least 30 days." A thousand (!) mainspace edits and 30 days of being a Brickipedian doesn't prove one's state of being active in successfully nominating articles for rating. Please read my comment more carefully; I said "less of a cabal." Subtle difference there. FB100Z • talk • contribs 03:48, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
Er... that shouldn't really be there, it was just left there from when it was copied from the RfA page. Removed now. Jag 03:50, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
Yea, I didn't even know that that was there, especially since one person was added to the group without those prereqs. ajr 03:51, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I've changed it to one hundred edits and one week. Jag 03:51, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

(undent) @Ajr: who was that? Jag 03:52, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we can eliminate the QCC (guess that the last letter means ;) altogether and rate articles based on Ajr's system. FB100Z • talk • contribs 03:57, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
It's Quality Check GROUP, not Quality Check Cabal. What's Ajr's system? Jag 03:58, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
  • happiness.... dying.... The current system is fast and efficient. The QCG is there to make quick and informed decisions on an article's status, and they can change it whenever they want. How many forums would there be if we had to do this, and what would you gain out of it except for a huge waiting time for votes to pass, and possible comments on an article's rating from users who may not yet know exactly what they're talking about? PS: taking a shot at people have rights constantly really doesn't make you popular... NightblazeSaber 04:03, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
"taking a shot at people have rights constantly" I'm not sure what you're saying here...plus, I'm not attacking anyone; I just don't like cabals :P FB100Z • talk • contribs 04:36, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
Well, admins/QCG members are hardly a secret political clique or faction :P NightblazeSaber 06:38, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
Some people think they are. ^_^ FB100Z • talk • contribs 20:58, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
  • Support: I really think this well work and make life allot easier for the QCG than having to go through all the Class 5 Articles.

SKP4472 Talk [[Special:Editcount/SKP4472|Special:Editcount/SKP4472 Edits!]] Devoted Editor of Brickipedia 09:55, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

  • .... and break. Please let's get back on topic here (see first few comments). Feel free to start another forum if you want to. NightblazeSaber 04:05, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
  • Maybe something like this for an icon (if it does go through)? I'm not saying it has to look like that, I was looking for a different font for the ? but couldn't find what I was after, but even if it's just used as a placeholder? NightblazeSaber 06:38, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
    Hehe, I like that one :3 ajr 13:19, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
    Does it have to be purple? FB100Z • talk • contribs 20:59, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
Support: I really like that one! Yay Purple! --...Half Way out of the Dark... 23:36, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
I don't really care about the colour, it was the concept I was mainly going for. I chose purple though because it wasn't used by any other icons, and didn't really imply any rating (usually green=good, red=bad, etc). And grey looks a bit bland. NightblazeSaber 00:05, May 3, 2011 (UTC)
Support, and not just because it's purple. ;) handy tool, especially when you've got undiscussed "Meh" pages. -Nerfblasterpro: Can you believe it's only been a year? 14:28, May 3, 2011 (UTC)
Support idea, but oppose way. The purple colour is dreadful. I'm okay with the questionmark, but is there any other symbol which could be used? And does it have to have a grey box around it? A small circle with an even smaller questionmark should do (I propose some fresh colour), since seeing a grey box in the corner of every article with purple questionmark seems a bit disturbing to me... :S A bot could add that new themplate to articles, but please only mainspace ones and no dates (why do we have rating templates on dates? They are only used for reference and can only be changed if something happened on that day, so we can't really edit it often).  Samdo994 talk contribs  14:36, May 3, 2011 (UTC)

Reviving[]

I've been thinking about how the Rating template works. At the moment, you have to go to a page and change the rating for that page, on that page. I was wondering if it would be possible to have a central page or pages that the ratings for articles are controlled on. This would also show whether people not in the QCG had been changing ratings- we could simply look at the history of the page and make sure that only QCG members had changed the ratings. I'm not sure how it would work technically though- I'm not sure how to do that. Coders? Jag 23:03, June 3, 2011 (UTC)

  • I really wouldn't know how to code anything like this, all I can really do is encourage QCG members to put +c3, +c4, etc in their edit summaries when they change ratings and/or to use the history template so it can be verified that it's a QCG member who changes them. But an automatic system or one which is somehow restricted to QCG members would be great. NightblazeSaber 06:51, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
    • I was thinking exactly that. - nxt 18:21, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
    • Sounds good...but how would we do it? -Cligra Join the redlink war!
    • I was going to start developing an extension for this once my exams are done. Stay tuned... ajr 23:32, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
    • Can't we just simplify things and allow anyone to change it? (And, of course, have discussion in case of conflict.) FB100Z • talk • contribs 23:41, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
    • Got it! First of all we create a custom user group: "Crown Knights" (or "Quality Check group Members") We then either use Rating:{{PAGENAME}} or {{PAGENAME}}/Rating. We then protect said page. A bot then adds "<accesscontrol>Crown Knights</accesscontrol>" to all such pages. This should mean that only users an that group can edit the page. The new Rating template is just {{Rating|Rating:<nowiki>{{PAGENAME}} or {{PAGENAME}}/Rating]]</nowiki>. The Rating page just has "2" "4" ect. All this coding should work. I have MediaWiki references. - nxt 18:55, June 13, 2011 (UTC)

I've made an "opposed" image, . I thought that this could link to the forum on it. Jag 04:49, June 13, 2011 (UTC)

  • Can we please get rid of the boarders on the images for oasis? You monobook people will kindly remember that the oasis template is different from the monobook one... and 100% of our viewers use oasis... ajr 05:02, June 13, 2011 (UTC)
  • I do use Oasis :D Sure, we can change it, I just copied the unrated template. But some people do use Monobook though... Jag 05:05, June 13, 2011 (UTC)
  • I am familiar with some code. I found this page on Mediawiki.org pertaining to ratings, evaluation, assigning who can do what. Anyway, you may want to check it out. •myk 06:01, June 13, 2011 (UTC)
  • @Ajr, I'll make some alternate logos (just remove the borders) and apply it to the Oasis section soon. @Mykheh, wow that looks exactly like what we want :) Anyone have any idea how to get this extension? NightblazeSaber 09:45, June 13, 2011 (UTC)
    • Ajr: better? NightblazeSaber 10:07, June 13, 2011 (UTC)
      • <3 ajr 14:19, June 13, 2011 (UTC)
    • No clue whats going on here, but for an extension you'd need to contact wikia staff. Kingcjc 14:46, June 13, 2011 (UTC)
      • Then We'll contact the Staff - me want this extension.:P Skdhjf(Talk!) 18:59, June 13, 2011 (UTC)
        • Just saying, from a technical standpoint this extension looks poorly written and terrible. I doubt that Wikia would enable it anyways. ajr 20:56, June 13, 2011 (UTC)
          • Looking at that page, I see Special Pages come with the extension (like Special:AskForReview). Star Wars Wiki contains Special Pages that other wikis do not have, which probably means they enabled some extension. •myk 00:10, June 14, 2011 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.
More Fandoms