9,600
edits
* I know I said I was closing this off, I'm not sure if a 1/5/3 vote is too close to call? Any opinions? {{User:NovaHawk/sig}} 00:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
* I would support the 4 tier system if it also includes the template-based system. I think the biggest problem with our current system is it doesn't tell what the problem with the article is necessarily (e.g. what it's missing that's keeping it from being a higher rating). With templates saying things like "this article needs __________", users can more easily determine how they can help the article. Plus, looking at articles that are in "Category:Articles that need _____", users can browse articles that need improvement easier based on how they want to contribute. Right now if a user is in the mood to add LEGO.com descriptions to an article, they can't easily find a list of pages that lack that description. With the category, they'd be able to find those pages, rather than looking through every C4 article which would be a nightmare. Going way back in time to when I worked on the Ninjago Wiki, we only had a few templates. No classes (besides featured), but it was always ''so'' easy to find what needed work and how exactly they needed improvement. I know we already have templates like this but their use should be more regular. I guess the current ones just don't seem to contribute much to content improvement. For example, while there's {{tl|Update}}, that hardly ever says ''what'' needs to be updated. And often times, the update message box needs to be updated itself, for example I periodically see one that says a page lacks 2013 info, but it hasn't been updated in so long that it also lacks 2014 info and 2015 info. I think the problem is they lack detail. I think the most important one for us to adopt will be the stub template(s). Since Brickipedia is more broad than The Ninjago Wiki was, we'll probably need more than one stub template like Wikipedia, such as ones that will categorize them as "Minifigure stubs" or "BIONICLE stubs". This should be able to help users who want to contribute to a certain area find things that need work in those areas. {{C|I don't know if I already said these exact things above I just wrote it all out and thought "did I already write this?" lolol}} --[[User:ToaMeiko|ToaMeiko]] ([[User talk:ToaMeiko|talk]]) 05:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
===CJC's long rambling comment===
This is being written at various free points over a period of couple of hours, so is probably incoherent. Hence why I've put it in its own section so I can use lots of bullet points without confusing things and to avoid a long text wall. Also, I haven't read most of the above since July, so forgive me if someone has already counter-argued my points/came up with solutions/is insulted by that.
* The rating system is clearly unsatisfactory at the moment.
* No one really knows what they mean.
* There is confusion, for example, of what the difference between C1 and C2 is - if a C2 is complete, what is a C1? Is it more complete?
* There is also, for example, confusion over what a c2f is, and the misguided belief that a c2f should automatically be a c2 upon release.
* This has led to the suggestion that the QCG should check the ratings on articles to ensure they are accurate often, which is obviously never done and never will be - it is labour intensive and unimportant to the site as a whole
* Which implies the current rating system is not relevant to how we use the site. Only one or two people really care about it, especially not the
* QCG, who (well, except Nova, who did most of the following) have made 50 changes since the 29th November, which surely, given how much information comes out in the month of December, means 100s of ratings are out of date?
*But it doesn't matter, because no one really uses the ratings to improve the articles.
*So I propose we have a smaller system. Personally I like something like "stub" "complete" "featured", but with the following stipend:
*Stubs would have little, unobtrusive bars, at the bottom, saying something like "this article needs (whatever), if you can help, why not edit" with a link or something like that.
* I guess I'd accept a 4 rating system like proposed above, but a fail to see what the difference between a satisfactory and complete page is.
* I am aware that that means most pages will be stubs - we can call it something nicer if that seems like a horrible prospect.
* Still, if we told people what needed doing on a page instead of just sticking a label in the corner that most don't notice and means nothing, then maybe more good will come from the system, and, to appease those moaning about such things - more editing will happen.
*{{c|Oh, and I'm resigning from the QCG since its become apparent that I lack either the knowledge or the time or the willpower to contribute to it under the current system.}}
[[User:CJC95|CJC95]] ([[User talk:CJC95|talk]]) 14:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
<div style="background:#FFCCCC;">
|