Forum:C2f

Forums - C2f

This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. No reason for archiving given. Why do we need this rating? It covers articles that could (universally) already be listed as somewhere from C4-C2, and it's another unnecessary complication to the already slightly excessive rating system. The vast majority of C2fs I've seen are either straight up bad articles (c4s at best) that get labeled with the positive-seeming C2f just because they contain "all the information there is to know right now", or straight-up C2s, that should be listed as such. As another issue, it seems like almost all C2fs get outdated immediately after the set(/minifigure/whatever) is released, and just go back to the rating they should have had in the first place. tl;dr: C2f is silly and unnecessary. Let's get rid of it. -Cligra I think we should keep it. It has a use. It covers articles that are complete at the time they were written, but need update when they're released. I go through C2f pages in every set release month (January, March, May, July, September) and update them accordingly. Pages about future sets when they are written rarely are C4. C4 means they have, or should have maintenance templates on them. Since they're complete at the time it's written, there's no need for maintenance templates, since they're complete. For example, see Squirrel Girl for example. It's complete right now, correct? Therefore it's C2. Now, if there was a Squirrel Girl minifigure that were to be released in 2016 that we don't have information about yet, the article would still be C2 right now. It won't be C2 when we get more information if that information isn't added, but at the time being, it's C2. C2f is the same case. It's pages that are complete right now, but more information will be available in the future, therefore in the future it won't be complete unless that info is added. I use C2f to know what pages might have become incomplete when new set waves are released. If all those set pages were in C2 or C4, I wouldn't be able to find them and update them as easily. tl;dr removing C2f isn't worthwhile. --ToaMeiko (talk) 16:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC) Per Meiko. Rating templates are basically a way of saying whether work is required on a page or not. For C2f pages, work may eventually be required, but not at that time. Some of them do look a lot like C4s, but that's as good as they really possibly can be at the moment. If, however, the set/minifigure/whatever is still not released, but there is also new information on them not included on the page, then maybe it would be worthwhile using a different rating than C2f for that page. BrickfilmNut (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC) My vote's to keep, but we do definitely need to put more effort into checking c2f so articles don't have the rating when they shouldn't have it. However, I find it a good quick way of seeing that an article's got all the information it can have at this point, and there's nothing we can do until we expand it NovaHawk 01:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)