Forum:The rating system

Forums - The rating system

This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page.

Comment: see Forum:Brickipedia:_The_reincarnation/Article_Ratings

To propose, as pursuant to the previous forum on the topic, that a new rating system be established, and for it to be based on the following principles:

) The system shall consist of four ratings, as previously agreed, consisting of "stub", "average", "complete" and "featured" articles.
) That those with administrator or patroller rights be allowed to rate an article as a "stub", "average", or "complete".
) That featured articles be voted on, in a manner similar to the current system.
) That featured articles be placed on the mainpage, and replaced monthly.
) For a transition period, in which "class 5" and "class 4" articles become "stubs", "class 3" become "average" and "class 2" and "class 1" become and "complete".

CJC95 (talk) 13:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Not super fond of the idea of pretty much anyone being able to change ratings, but it's not a deal breaker. Otherwise I like it. -NBP3.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I was under the impression we weren't meant to be "just handing out patroller" anymore, and expecting the admins alone to do it means it will just be me and you doing it... CJC95 (talk) 13:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Most likely true, and I guess if we're treating Patroller like we used to treat rollback then I see no problem with just giving patrollers rating privelages. Guidelines for these ratings will have to be in depth though, maybe we can use certain articles as examples for each rating when writing up these guidelines. -NBP3.0 (talk) 13:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, my guidelines are based entirely on instinct :P Like, can't you just tell if a page needs more content ("stub"), is average ("average"), is good ("complete") or amazing ("featured")? Well, I suppose the line blurs, but that is why I wanted to merge average and complete. CJC95 (talk) 18:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure you want to go with the name "average"? "Average" can be used in a negative sense, and it might also reinforce the fact that the majority of the articles aren't complete? (maybe acceptable/adequate/satisfactory?) Completely up to you guys of course EnormousGreenRageMonster (talk) 00:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

^("Satisfactory" sounds best to me, followed by "adequate.") Otherwise I mostly agree, except I would go through C1 and see if any can be earmarked for FA. And by "I would" I mean that would be a good thing that I might be able to do. :P Berrybrick (talk) 00:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Satisfactory sounds good. I don't adequate would be good though... --LK901 11:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Per Berry/EGRM, but even without that fairly-trivial point, I support the implementation. BrickfilmNut (talk) 01:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)