Forum:Redoing the way we rate articles

Forums: Index →

Administration

→ Redoing the way we rate articles

Alright, this is going to be a huge forum, to say the least. I'd like to propose that we completely redo the way we rate articles. This will involve the complete removal of "complete" and "good" articles, as well as the BOR and CCG.

Here is how the new system will work, if approved. There are four classes of articles, and the levels are designed to match the pattern that new articles usually follow:

Class 4

Class 4 articles are basically stubs; small articles without all the required information that are still worth keeping. All articles start at class 4.

Class 3

Class 3 articles are almost complete articles, with all the required templates, and properly formatted. These articles don't have all of the information on the topic, but are set up well.

Class 2

Class 2 articles are well formatted, have all the required templates, and also have all of the required information on that subject. All current "complete" articles would be transferred to a class 2 rating.

Class 1

Class one articles are good. They meet the criteria of class 2, but also are very well written and represent the best content on the wiki. All current "good" articles will be transferred to a class 1 rating.

The ratings aren't the major change with this, however. The major change is how the nomination system works. The aim of the new system is to reduce bureaucracy, and to get as many users as possible involved.

Two new pages will be created:

• Brickipedia:Content Improvement - This page will outline how to create and improve articles, and describe the "promotion" process.
• Brickipedia:Article Promotion - This page will allow users to easily nominate any article from promotion from its current level to the next up. Any user can nominate, any user can vote. All on one page.

Anyways, please discuss and suggest improvements :) ajr 00:17, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Support - :) ajr 00:18, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, also, featured articles would still exist - but that is not a rating. ajr 00:20, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - as discussed on IRC, sounds good to me :) ----- Merry Christmas - Kingcjc 00:21, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Would we still have the Imperial Guard? Jag 02:12, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

No, BOR is no longer needed with this system. ajr 02:15, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

And no CCG, either? Oh, sorry, I should have read the first paragraph properly. Jag 07:01, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - why not?

BobaFett

 Talk  MOCPages Group (Click)  02:23, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - LEGO Lord 17:05, December 27, 2010 (UTC) Sounds good to me.

I think that the promotion page might get a bit long... maybe we could have a group of users that are allowed to automatically promote articles to higher ratings, say 4 to 3 and maybe 3 to 2. Jag 07:04, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

No, the entire point of this is to reduce bureaucracy. This can easily be accomplished by a 3-5 day vote. ajr 15:51, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

How about we split it between themes? BobaFett

 Talk  MOCPages Group (Click)  14:25, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean? ajr 15:51, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

Well CJC has an organizing page for figuring out which redirects need to be made. That just lists the numbers. All of them. That took about a minute to load, and I have a fast connection and computer. For those who don't...

BobaFett

 Talk  MOCPages Group (Click)  15:53, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

How does that figure in? ----- Merry Christmas - Kingcjc 17:00, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying that a page with all of the info on what's what rating will take FOREVER to load because of page size. BobaFett

 Talk  MOCPages Group (Click)  17:02, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course we could do that - we already do a similar thing. I just didn't understand what you were trying to say. ajr 17:06, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

He is trying to say that we need to split the article up between different themes, meaning a article about Racers, an article about Ninjago, etc. It is so people who have slow computers wouldn't have to wait forever. I used to have a computer with a major virus and it took about 10 minutes just to write a word on Brickipedia. However, luckily I got a new computer. LEGO Lord 17:17, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support, but what is improved by using this new way? And where do FA's go to - Class 1 or Class "0"?  Samdo994 talk contribs  18:10, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

It would be the same, or so I believe.

BobaFett

 Talk  MOCPages Group (Click)  18:55, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

It looks like we have six supports, zero opposes, with 4 admins supporting. So do we need to wait longer, or can we start working out the details now? Jag 20:28, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

No to the admins part - admins are just normal users, and their voice should not be heard more than any other users'. ajr 03:10, December 31, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but it does show that users that we know are experienced have voted on it. Jag 18:27, December 31, 2010 (UTC)

A bit late and may not count, won't actually vote yet, just some questions:

• How would the main page work? The FA section is there obviously to show the very best articles we have, and a lot of current GA's wouldn't be good enough to be showcased on the main page
• Would the voting just be a straight vote, or would some other group or system be established? The whole reason the BOR was established was so that if a page did not comply to the MoS but still had a lot of support votes simply because users liked the page, there would be something in place so the vote could not go through until issues with the MoS were resolved
• Article icons- would we have them for every page to show the class, or for class 1 only, or remove them entirely?

That's all I can think of for now NightblazeSaber 23:04, December 30, 2010 (UTC)

Their would still be FA's, and I'll let Ajr field the rest :) -----Happy New Year- Kingcjc 23:08, December 30, 2010 (UTC)

Voting would just be a straight vote, but a 50% pass rate isn't needed. 60 or 70% would be better. One of the main points of the new system is to reduce the bureaucracy around the way we rate articles, and having groups and very detailed criteria is, in my mind, excessively bureaucratic.

Article icons will no longer exist, and will be instead replaced by a small box on top of infoboxes stating the class of the article.

As I briefly said above, featured articles stay. However, "featured article" is no longer a class of article, but rather applies to articles which are, will or have been featured. I supposed the BOR and bureaucracy can remain for this, if needed. ajr 03:10, December 31, 2010 (UTC)

Support: If we're keeping the FA's, than have at it! :) —Unsigned comment by Nerfblasterpro (talk • contribs).

• Oppose (but it most likely won't count anyway :D). Sorry, I just don't really see a point, or any real benefit to going to all this effort for changing things around. If we're keeping FA's, then there isn't really any change to ratings themselves at all, things just get renamed- FA's stay as FA's, GA's become Class 1, CA's become Class 2. And, it seems to have more bureaucracy than the original- CCG members can just put through CA's immediately, and if it's about "special groups", well, CCG's aren't special, anyone can automatically join provided they have shown they can check articles against the MoS correctly. It seems to me there will be a lot mroe voting going on than before. I'm liking the idea of rating every article though, like on the Quality control pages. NightblazeSaber 02:03, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

No, actually, I do think that your opinion has merit. I'm not involved with the CCG, and you know more about it than I do. The current system works, I guess, but I'd like to see "ratings" on every article - ratings which anyone can add. I'll also still make the article on content improvement, though. 198.53.247.123 02:55, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, just wondering, are you an IP or just someone who's forgotten to log in? NightblazeSaber 08:08, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

That's me on my craptop ;P ajr 03:59, January 3, 2011 (UTC)

Thought it might have been you :P NightblazeSaber 05:08, January 3, 2011 (UTC)

@ Ajraddatz: Regarding the "Admins-are-as-good-as-all-other-users-theorem", you are right in that point, but don't you think admins are a bit more experienced in wiki things than new users? Isn't that important for voting too?  Samdo994 talk contribs  13:32, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

An admin's purpose is not to be as experienced in the voting or MOS. It's just to block users, delete pages, and protect pages. There are other users who also are experienced with the MOS who are not admins. Some are more experienced with the MOS. And some admins have been away for a while, so if they returned they might not understand all of the new changes.

BobaFett

 Talk  MOCPages Group (Click)  13:34, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ - admins are no better than normal users, and candidates for adminship shouldn't be selected solely on their understanding of the wiki's policies. I don't know half of them myself. ajr 03:59, January 3, 2011 (UTC)

About the whole ratings on every page thing, I totally support that, but allowing anyone to do it? Would you really want an IP (who you can't easily identify who they are) or a new user who may know very little about the wiki or wikis in general to have the power to change ratings? And add to that any vandals/spammers. Currently, the CCG is in charge of being able to alter ratings of articles listed in Brickipedia:Quality control overviews between levels 0 and 3 (0 being a stub, 3 being complete), and the GA and FA go through the voting. I don't really see what's wrong with still letting the CCG take care of the lower ratings still- they have to have demonstrated that they can look at an article and tell whether it's complete to get into the group, and anyone has the ability to gain automatic access to it- they just have to have successfully nominated 10 complete articles in a row at Brickipedia:Completeness/Article proposals. I just think you'd need to restrict the group a bit so that you only have people who know what they're talking about able to change the ratings, that's all NightblazeSaber 05:08, January 3, 2011 (UTC)

I'd restrict the group, not so far as current groups, i.e. only 6 or 10 users or something, but to stop new and unregistered contributors ---- Kingcjc 13:11, January 3, 2011 (UTC)

Why restrict it? That just bureaucratizes it. I see no need to limit these groups-BOR, I think we are removing-although it IS a useful group, but CCG is key-it's what keeps quality of complete articles up. Personally, I think we should have a drive where we check every complete article to make sure it still fits the standards.

BobaFett

 Talk  MOCPages Group (Click)  14:08, January 3, 2011 (UTC)

I'm saying restrict it to stop IP's and users who will just see the opportunity to cause havoc ---- Kingcjc 14:11, January 3, 2011 (UTC)

But what about users who just don't know what they're doing yet, and decide to rate articles? And if we disallow that, who determies that they don't know what they're doing? And the CCG's at only 10 users because noone's nominating articles for completeness- if they did, then they could get into the group (well, either that or they're eligible but don't want to join) NightblazeSaber 21:51, January 3, 2011 (UTC)

I actually like what you are saying, NHL. The CCG could be able to rate an article between 0 and 3, and 4 and FA would be community vote. I think that it would be good to eliminate the BOR, but that is just me. At the same time though, I like the idea of going with numerical ratings - not only does it make us a bit unique, but it is an easier to use system that people can get without very much reading. ajr 03:49, January 5, 2011 (UTC)

New icons

Class 4

Class 3

Class 2

Class 1

Featured

These can go right above the infoboxes. As for how they are promoted to the different classes, the CCG can appoint articles to a max of class 2. Class 1 and featured required consensus. Users can nominate articles for a higher rating at Brickipedia:Content Improvement/Nominations (up to class 2), where a CCG member will review it and promote the article accordingly. Ajraddatz 01:08, January 12, 2011 (UTC)

Good. Let's do it. By we I mean you. BobaFett

 Talk  MOCPages Group (Click)  01:10, January 12, 2011 (UTC)

Maybe BP:CIN should be split up into different pages, i.e. 4-3, 3-2, 2-1, and 1-F? Jag 19:07, January 14, 2011 (UTC)

Can you give a preview of where the icons would be? Wouldn't it just be where {{Rating}} places them? Just as long they're not in the infobox, I guess I'm ok with it though. And I'm still not a fan of this straight vote for GA's and FA's- take a look at the current BP:FAC- we've got one user there who's made a grand total of 12 mainspace edits (sorry, not meaning to single this user out, but I need an example), and it could be a whole group of people like this who aren't experienced with the wiki and not familiar with even the most basic aspects of the MoS can come along and put an article through to FA status. How about keeping the BOR for FA and GA, but with lesser powers than currently? A separate section for each vote, just for the BOR, where they can say if the article complies to the MoS? Probably not explained well, basically I mean what we have for BP:BFA, where a BAG member has a "technically supported" vote, just to say that a bot complies with the minimum criteria? Also, not really a fan of the red brick for FA, red usually means bad, and it's used all over the place on our main page, just as a default bullet point. Sorry if I'm complaining a lot, I do like this idea, but I'm just a bit worried about some aspects of it since it's a fairly big change :) NightblazeSaber 23:01, January 15, 2011 (UTC)

The rating boxes would go right above the infobox, or right below it, depending. We could do the GAs and FAs like BOR... I guess... but I'd prefer to reduce the bureaucracy. Ajraddatz 23:18, January 15, 2011 (UTC)

1. Have gold for FA. 2. Another idea- maybe combine BOR and CCG Agents for this? If BOR are going to have lesser powers, maybe we should replace the two groups with one. Jag 18:21, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, that's a good idea to combine the two. Also, yea, we'll use gold, there just isn't a good image of a gold brick atm. Ajraddatz 01:32, January 21, 2011 (UTC)

How about just the red brick tinted gold (ie, )? And, I'd be ok with a BOR/CCG merge (half the BOR's inactive anyway), however, I think members of both groups should be questioned to see if they're ok with it. Still don't know if I'm ok with the positioning of the templates though, and don't really see a problem with just modifying {{Rating}} to include some new ratings. NightblazeSaber 02:31, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

That looks a bit orange. :D. Anyway, here's one I made on LDD: . Also, I thought maybe (just maybe) we could have all bricks for the rating system, like this:. Or, maybe, as is also shown, have the bricks also increasing in size. Just a couple of ideas. Jag 21:53, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

@NHL, the reason I want them this way is so that it's clearer what the rating of the article is. With the current system, there is just a little icon hidden up at the top amidst the other buttons 'n' stuff there. Ajraddatz 23:35, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

@Jag: Doesn't that one look a bit pink? ;) The brick rating for the whole scheme could be a good idea though.

@Ajr: Are you using Oasis? Becuase I just had a preview of it in that skin, and the rating template is really bad, mainly due to the fact of not being able to use absolute positioning in that skin. It still looks great to me in Monobook though :S I don't suppose there's a way to have the template appear one way on one skin, and another way on the other? NightblazeSaber 00:10, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am. I don't think that it is possible to do that, unfortunately - another reason why I'd like to use my templates instead. Ajraddatz 00:18, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

How about adding another field to the infobox? Jag 05:53, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

Strong Oppose- Infoboxes should be solely for the topic of the article, not Brickipedia's administrative stuff. NightblazeSaber 07:45, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

I think putting the thing in the infobox itself is a bad idea, but we can include it within the template, simply above the box part. That way it's always positioned correctly and we don't need to add another template to pages.

BobaFett

 Talk  MOCPages Group (Click)  13:05, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with BobaFett2 and Nighthawk leader. Infoboxes should only hold information about the articles subject, not the administrative stuff.

SKP4472 Talk [[Special:Editcount/SKP4472|Special:Editcount/SKP4472 Edits!]] Devoted Editor of Brickipedia 21:21, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, now that I think about it, I agree, but maybe Boba's idea? Having at as part of the template, but not part of the actual box? Jag 21:54, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

I like that, then it can be just a field in the template, but be separate from it. Ajraddatz 23:13, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

Support That's a good idea. I support.

SKP4472 Talk [[Special:Editcount/SKP4472|Special:Editcount/SKP4472 Edits!]] Devoted Editor of Brickipedia 17:01, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose' due to it being a part of the infoboxes, meaning that our stuff isn't separated from the content, even if it's only in code. It would also mean changing 7 infobox templates or so, instead of just creating one simple template. And, as everyone can use the infobox templates, it would encourage non-CCG/BOR members to edit this field. NightblazeSaber 11:11, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

You're right...I forgot that this applied to more than sets. I guess we could just modify the old template...remember? Template:Rating. In fact, all you have to do is change image and links.

BobaFett

 Talk  MOCPages Group (Click)  13:55, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

We were thinking about doing that- but NHL says it looks bad on Oasis. (Personally, I can't even see it on Oasis) Jag 03:01, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's not bad I guess, but Oasis blocks off all the absolute positioning, so it appears in the top left corner of the article, not on the right side level with the title. I would be much happier with just changing the icons in {{rating}}, as I think it would look much better, well for Monobook anyway, but this other new way might look better for Oasis. I think the ideal thing would be to have some way for it to appear one way in Oasis and the other in Monobook, but it's probably not possible. NightblazeSaber 04:01, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

I've just thought of a way to do what I mentioned above, however, can anyone in Oasis even see the rating template right now? I just had a look, and for some reason it doesn't appear on any of the articles, so I can't test anything. But, what I was thinking is have two named divs- one for Monobook, one for Oasis. Then, we simply use visibility:hidden on the Oasis CSS Mediawiki page for the Monobook div, and vice versa. That way, we can have {{Rating}} as is for Monobook, and have it the other way suggested above for Oasis. NightblazeSaber 23:32, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

So would the field be shown in Monobook? Jag 02:18, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

Theoretically, if this was to be done, the above icons would appear in Oasis, but {{Rating}} would appear as is in Monobook (with additional logos for the other classes). NightblazeSaber 02:46, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

New

I couldn't think of a better name for a header, but anyway, we need to come to a decision about this as this seems to of been forgotten about. SKP4472 Talk [[Special:Editcount/SKP4472|Special:Editcount/SKP4472 Edits!]] Devoted Editor of Brickipedia 17:20, February 20, 2011 (UTC)

Alright, reading above the general consensus is as such:

• The new class rating system will be enabled. CCG members will be able to rate an article Class 4 to Class 2. Class 1 and FA decided by vote.
• The template I designed will be used, but nearer to the top of the page, and not part of the template.

Any objections? Ajraddatz 03:55, February 22, 2011 (UTC)

No objections here... what about the brick rating? Jag 04:02, February 22, 2011 (UTC)

None here.

BobaFett

 Talk  MOCPages Group (Click)  04:16, February 22, 2011 (UTC)

No objection from me but I do have a question, is it possible for each class to have a hidden category, for example...

• • • A Class 4 article could have a hidden category called "Article's in need of expansion"
    • A Class 3 article could have a hidden category called "Average Articles"
    • A Class 2 article could have a hidden category called "Complete Articles"
    • A Class 1 article could have a hidden category called "Good Articles"
    • An FA article could have a hidden category called "Featured Articles"

Just an idea that I thought may help sort out the different articles with different ratings into groups.

SKP4472 Talk [[Special:Editcount/SKP4472|Special:Editcount/SKP4472 Edits!]] Devoted Editor of Brickipedia 11:22, February 22, 2011 (UTC)

Would be possible, but I think we shouldn't use that (yet) since the category would be too full (having most articles in there) and it would take time to sort out the Class 3, 2, 1 articles. And there is a difference between articles in need of expansion (with the expand template), most of the current articles and complete articles.  Samdo994 talk contribs  14:02, February 22, 2011 (UTC)

Hidden cats are already used for complete articles, and GA's and FA's aren't hidden. But I think having them all hidden would work fine. Oppose to the new template being used, well in Monobook anyway. I just can't see it looking nice in that skin, but I think it would definitely fit with the style of Oasis. No opposition with the other points, as long as the vote is discussed further. NightblazeSaber 00:01, February 23, 2011 (UTC)

And I can confirm that the skin-specific way does work. Also, will there be an FApast rating for the other templates (ie, possible more than one rating slot required for an article)? NightblazeSaber 00:59, February 23, 2011 (UTC)

I have no objections to any of this. --Cligra 20:49, February 23, 2011 (UTC)

So, are we going to do anything here? Maybe we should set up a final vote or something? NightblazeSaber 07:44, February 25, 2011 (UTC)

• Would it be ok to close any unanimous votes on March 3 (1 week after it started?) NightblazeSaber 05:48, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

• I'd say okay... just the unanimous ones. Jag 22:33, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

---

• Ok, well, I've modified {{Rating}} to have icons for the new classes, example at Rotta the Huttlet. I haven't put a link on the icon yet since we don't have pages set up yet. I've attached Category:Class 3 Articles to this one, I was going to use SKP's cats, however, we already have an "articles in need of expansion" category attached to {{expand}}. Maybe we should just stick with "Class 3/4/5 Articles"? Just sounds a bit more precise to be. Or, if we have alternate names, I'm ok with that too. The Oasis template setup may take me around 24 hours to get up and running due to my possible inactivity, but it will definitely be up in that time (hopefully). I'm using the existing icons from the quality control overviews for now, but if that changes, it can easily be changed in the template, it's just a placeholder for now. About current GA/FA votes, I believe they should be finished off with the rules they started with, but any new ones should be under the new rules- would that be ok to do? Also, we need a new name for the BOR/CCG group. NightblazeSaber 02:00, March 3, 2011 (UTC)

Just wondering, when CCG/BOR members change the rating on the page, will they have to change it in two places, or just one? New name... I'd say for the CCG/BOR type name, we should have QCG (quality check group), but I'm not sure about the other one. Imperial Agents? haha Jag 02:24, March 3, 2011 (UTC)

Haha, Imperial Agents sounds good :D No, you use Template:Rating as normal, only one change necessary. I think I've just got the template working for both skins, again see Rotta in Monobook (if you're in Oasis) and Oasis (if you're in Monobook) to see how the template looks on both skins. NightblazeSaber 02:26, March 3, 2011 (UTC)

Is it meant to be on the left hand side on oasis? --- Why So Serious? -- Kingcjc 19:37, March 4, 2011 (UTC)

Been meaning to ask that for ages. NightblazeSaber 21:02, March 4, 2011 (UTC)

Vote

Overall

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was to redo the way we rate articles Redo the way we rate articles SKP4472 Talk [[Special:Editcount/SKP4472|Special:Editcount/SKP4472 Edits!]] Devoted Editor of Brickipedia 09:04, February 25, 2011 (UTC) NightblazeSaber 11:10, February 25, 2011 (UTC) BobaFett Talk MOCPages Group (Click) 18:53, February 25, 2011 (UTC) --- A Kind of Madness-- Kingcjc 19:02, February 25, 2011 (UTC) Jag 00:17, March 1, 2011 (UTC) Lego lord 01:04, March 1, 2011 (UTC) Don't redo the way we rate articles Comments

Icons

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was to use existing template for Monobook, new template for Oasis Use new icons for both skins Use new icons for Oasis, modify existing {{rating}} for Monobook Very easy to change, to me the existing icons look much better, but I'm using Monobook, and I agree that the current icons don't look great on Oasis. NightblazeSaber 11:10, February 25, 2011 (UTC) Jag 18:52, February 25, 2011 (UTC) --- A Kind of Madness-- Kingcjc 19:02, February 25, 2011 (UTC) SKP4472 Talk [[Special:Editcount/SKP4472|Special:Editcount/SKP4472 Edits!]] Devoted Editor of Brickipedia 09:14, February 26, 2011 (UTC) Add more icons {{Rating}}, keeping the current look

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was to Merge the CCG and BOR Check Group Merge CCG and BOR Jag 18:52, February 25, 2011 (UTC) BobaFett Talk MOCPages Group (Click) 18:54, February 25, 2011 (UTC) --- A Kind of Madness-- Kingcjc 19:02, February 25, 2011 (UTC) SKP4472 Talk [[Special:Editcount/SKP4472|Special:Editcount/SKP4472 Edits!]] Devoted Editor of Brickipedia 09:16, February 26, 2011 (UTC) Ajraddatz 00:32, March 1, 2011 (UTC) Keep Existing groups I may change my vote. Currently unsure. SKP4472 Talk [[Special:Editcount/SKP4472|Special:Editcount/SKP4472 Edits!]] Devoted Editor of Brickipedia 11:40, February 25, 2011 (UTC)

Class 4-2

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was Allow new group to give ratings from class 4-2 Allow Group* to single-handedly rate articles from class 4-2 *= group dependant on above vote NightblazeSaber 11:10, February 25, 2011 (UTC) Same as NHL. SKP4472 Talk [[Special:Editcount/SKP4472|Special:Editcount/SKP4472 Edits!]] Devoted Editor of Brickipedia 11:39, February 25, 2011 (UTC) Jag 18:52, February 25, 2011 (UTC) BobaFett Talk MOCPages Group (Click) 18:54, February 25, 2011 (UTC) --- A Kind of Madness-- Kingcjc 19:02, February 25, 2011 (UTC) Ajraddatz 00:32, March 1, 2011 (UTC) Do Not Allow Group* to single-handedly rate articles from class 4-2

Class 1/FA

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was 70% pass rate for both Class 1 and FA Have a straight majority vote Have a 60% pass rate Have a 70% pass rate NightblazeSaber 11:10, February 25, 2011 (UTC) SKP4472 Talk [[Special:Editcount/SKP4472|Special:Editcount/SKP4472 Edits!]] Devoted Editor of Brickipedia 11:38, February 25, 2011 (UTC) Jag 18:52, February 25, 2011 (UTC) --- A Kind of Madness-- Kingcjc 19:02, February 25, 2011 (UTC) Ajraddatz 00:32, March 1, 2011 (UTC)

Class 1/FA (Group*)

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was Allow the group to hold back nominations if it does not comply to the MoS Have a group* who checks the article for MOS compliance, and if the article does not comply, do not let it pass NightblazeSaber 11:10, February 25, 2011 (UTC) SKP4472 Talk [[Special:Editcount/SKP4472|Special:Editcount/SKP4472 Edits!]] Devoted Editor of Brickipedia 11:38, February 25, 2011 (UTC) Jag 18:52, February 25, 2011 (UTC) BobaFett Talk MOCPages Group (Click) 18:54, February 25, 2011 (UTC) --- A Kind of Madness-- Kingcjc 19:02, February 25, 2011 (UTC) Do not have a group* for this

Icon Pictures

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)

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)

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)