RationalWiki talk:Article rating

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This page is automatically archived by Pibot
Archives for this talk page: <1>

Contents

[edit] Copper???

Wtf that is stupid. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The brainstar thing looks just like silver, btw. What about zinc? Same problem. Three tiers are enough, really. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

No one cares? What it this, the Special Olympics for articles, everyone gets a medal? Copper??? ħumanUser talk:Human 02:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I wondered where the fuck cooper came from. Agree with Human. AceModerator 02:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Copper and bronze are a ridiculous public face to put on some of this junk but silver and gold seem like mostly harmless make-work wankery. If you're coming back to get a ton of editing done again I'd suggest getting the copper and bronze medals off the more embarrassing sharticles and leaving it at that. Best of luck dealing with some of the fun people who set this overblown bullshit up. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 04:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Removing Copper comes first. At least Bronze/Silver/Gold have a context. There is no fourth place in the Olympics. Those who wish to defend the "copper" rating need to turn up and do so or it will be vacuumed from the face of this wiki. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Human Has Spoken. Think Upon That, and Be Dismayed. How about we put the idea to a vote instead of cowering at you waving your e-peen around like a giant bully? P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 02:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I think copper is fucking stupid also. What next? Zinc? Phosphorus level articles? AceModerator 03:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
You could have a system where the priority is an argument of the template on the page itself, rather than the talk page, and then having the 'copper' be the equivilent of 'unrated' and have no icon. Peter Monomorium antarcticum 03:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm actually agnostic on the question, i just hate the idea of undoing hours and hours of other people's work because someone is cranky; let the mob have a say--votes aren't that expensive to run. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 03:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Hey, red phosphorus can spontaneously combust. The should be the highest level. steriletalk 04:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and I never understand why we have to vote to take things away when we never voted on them in the first place. steriletalk 04:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, we don't usually vote on the creation of articles, merely their deletion. A similar thing probably applies here. Peter Monomorium antarcticum 04:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I also don't see the point of copper. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 08:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
It does differentiate between 'Edstub' and 'nobody's checked to see if it's an Edstub'. More importantly, it would be quite a pain to get rid of without a bot, and I suspect Blue is the only one who could do that easily (she presumably still has the script that she used to implement it in the first place). Peter Monomorium antarcticum 08:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Let me add my voice to saying that I see little point in the "copper" level ranking. The rankings bronze, silver, and gold are used to distinguish our higher and highest quality articles. Copper, on the other hand, is like a "you tried your best, but you lost miserably" award. So far as getting rid of copper articles, I'd think the easiest way to eliminate the classification would be to blank the template. The Symphony of Noise The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 22:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
agreed here. Copper-level is unwanted and unneeded. it also encourages laziness - "ooh, a stub, I'll write something to make it bigger" becomes "ooh, a stub, I'll stick a template on it." The metal levels were meant to highlight our good articles, not draw attention to the unfinished crap in the back. I'm happy with blanking the template and just pretending it ever existed. Sophie (talk) 22:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Vote?

[edit] Keep it

  1. It is not like it is hurting anyone, who gives a fuck? Pi 3:14 (talk) 14:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Get rid of it

  1. Osaka Sun (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  2. Seth Peck (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  3. Sophie (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  4. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  5. Whatevers. TyAnnoy 00:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Fuck off Osaka Sun, I'm petting my goats.

  1. I'm for abolishing all ratings except gold. Most of the criticism of copper above can be applied to bronze and silver. We should only have a "gold standard" - ratings below that simply encourage unfinished work. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 23:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
    Also, unlike many here, I have the know-how to actually dismantle parts of the labyrinthine ratings system elegantly. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 23:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
    If we do that, we should revert to calling them "cover articles" & pretend this rating thing never happened. There's no point in "gold" if it's not part of a hierarchy. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
    Well, not necessarily. "Gold" can be a qualifier without the Olympic medal progression present - reddit gold, the gold edition, etc. But considering we already call them cover articles and sort of shoehorned the gold rating onto that existing framework, we should indeed just call them cover articles. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 00:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
    And there's silver on the main page. TyAnnoy 00:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  2. I'm up for "gold" and stub. one is pretty obvious, the other should be a vote or some kind of mass consensus. Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 23:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  3. This idea looks like the best option. Peter Monomorium antarcticum 03:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


[edit] So

Now what? ТyYes? 14:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Tungsten. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Arguably my favorite metal. We should add Platinum and Palladium as well.Тyeh? 19:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Iridium too. Peter Monomorium antarcticum 19:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I like Gibeon and have a ring made from it. -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Fuck off, rhodium is where it's at. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 21:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I, personally, like the idea of a "Californium" level of articles. The Symphony of Noise The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 11:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Roentgenium is in the transition metal block. It's also in Group 11 with copper, silver and gold. So if you *really* want to be nerdy, we need to get rid of bronze. Scarlet A.pngmoral 12:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
We could also have a "Plutonium Award" for articles that help generate the 1.21 gigawatts of energy I need to power my flux capacitor. The Symphony of Noise The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 12:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
You're still using plutonium? I got a Mr Fusion last week, they're getting quite reasonable now. Sophiebecause liberals 12:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
What?!?!? Someone beat me to the punch with the Mr. Fusion idea? Son of a bitch....! The Symphony of Noise The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 19:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
What about Pandemonium? Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 13:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm, so this is what nostalgia feels like. Scarlet A.pngtheist 12:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] The talk page templating

Looks like a disaster. Who decides what "level" priority an article is? A cat full of talk pages is even sillier. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You could have a system where the priority is an argument of the template on the page itself, rather than the talk page, and then having the 'copper' be the equivilent of 'unrated' and have no icon. Peter Monomorium antarcticum 03:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
part of the reason for a copper, is that it allows editors to put the template there, even on crappy or stubby articles. As for the decision regarding the "level" of an article, it's the same as everything else around here. Mass bullying/convincing/etc. Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 03:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Woooo, I like the Mass bullying part. AceModerator 03:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
This is what the rating is for. It could probably be used more, yes. Peter Monomorium antarcticum 03:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Mass Bullying is quite a useful trick in the hat here. Midnight reverts equally so.  ;-) Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 03:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Dumb and ridiculous

Well? It's dumb and ridiculous, and useless. Peter, not even sure what that template is for. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

That template (you mean the rate-priority one, right? It's arguably in the wrong bloody namespace, but what the hell, I didn't make this) gives some idea of the potential uses of the system. On that page the rating and the priority are crossed with each other, showing that you can use it to find important articles that need work, unimportant articles that are nevertheless very good etc. If the template and categories were on the page itself (rather than the talk page) you would be able to add in the actual article category (e.g. 'intelligent design creationism') to see what needed work.
The arbitrary nature of rating that you complain about is really not that much of an issue. Since the removal of copper there is only one level (bronze) that people don't seem to see the need to vote and discuss. And its usually pretty clear whether the article is bronze or coprolite in quality, and if you don't agree with a drive-by templating then change it, don't remove it (forgetting about the on-page one) and then blank the template. That kind of thing has resulted in slow revert wars of late, and is why nobody wants to discuss the matter.
And putting some indication of the quality of the article on the page itself (the coloured brains) can be useful to readers, as looking through the RW google alerts I do worry that people are taking what we write as gospel truth if it agrees with them.
There are much less useful templates on this wiki. Peter with added ‼Science‼ 05:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Peter raises a great and very important point about that oft-forgotten group, RW's readers. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 06:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Godamned stupid copper debate

Well I fucking changed it because no one did fucking nothing. You can either A) Keep my changes B) Revert, keep everything the same and ban me or C) Get rid of the dumb copper articles. AceModerator 09:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't you have mod powers to remove it? Osaka Sun (talk) 09:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Maybe.....AceModerator 09:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I have completed deleted the entire copper category and the template. All gone.......I felt like being manly and have started drinking again so needed to exert my manly sent of awesome. AceModerator 11:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Good work. I've switched template:rated so that it shows formerly copper ones as unrated, + deleted the copper categories for articles & talk pages. ωεαşεζόίďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Ace for Ruler-Overlord of RationalWiki!!! The Symphony of Noise The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 12:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
You're all incompetent. If you're going to delete it, go all the way. Right now most of the copper infrastructure is still in place.
Can we just all agree the entire system was pointless, and return to cover articles alone? Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 22:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
No!!!! I think this is worthy of a good old fashioned HCM!!! </sarcasm> The Symphony of Noise The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 14:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Probably could just go back to cover articles only, but I think it would be worth discussing further at SB/Forum & intercomming it first, to make sure everyone is aware & more or less happy with this. We don't want to strip every article of its rating & then have to put them all back again because of complaints. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 15:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
No, I like the Gold, Silver, and Bronze statuses, personally. They give people surfing the Wiki a way to navigate pages with we deem our most important. Cover story is a good idea, but those articles need to be very high quality and of utmost importance to our mission. These ratings give people a bit more variety with article navigation while still showing off our good-quality articles. A silver article, for example, may not be our best article and thus not on the main page, but it's still damn good and has been well researched. The Symphony of Noise The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 15:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
There's also the argument that silver is also for articles that are as good as gold but not fully missionish and thus not cover material. Sophiebecause liberals 15:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
The problem with the ratings is that the are only decided by a few people, and then there was that nonsense about someone trying to get their pet article awarded gold. Also I've never really understood the "importance" ranking. I'm all for just having the cover article status for the best stuff. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 08:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

[edit] A modest proposal (get rid of bronze and the rated template)

I've finally come around to seeing Human's criticism of this system — namely, that we are putting "medals" on articles that are really not anything we want to brag about. This is mainly to do with the widespread, unilaterally-added bronze rating. Now, as far as I know, improving an article from bronze to silver has only happened a handful of times, and certainly not because someone took notice of the bronze brainstar. Ultimately, I just don't see the point and it has the potential to be counterproductive. I propose the following restructuring of the system:

  1. Remove all instances of {{Rated}}.
  2. Remove all {{bronze}} brainstars.
  3. Change the "silver" rating to something that implies "on deck for cover article status."
  4. Change the "gold" rating back to "cover article."

The rated template doesn't serve much of a purpose anyway, and would serve less of a purpose should we get rid of bronze. Regardless, we should not have a standard for subpar articles and give these articles a medal for being subpar. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 01:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Fine. TyJFBAA 01:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Whatever else, we should definitely scrap the "high/low/mid/fuck all importance" priority ratings, which just seem to be slapped on arbitrarily with little or no relation to how much attention an article gets or is likely to get. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 08:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Uh, bump. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 23:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Might as well start getting rid of it. TyJFBAA 23:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
You could probably just leave silver as silver. Peter mqzp 00:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
No real opinion. There isn't necessarily any real active monitoring of any of these, except someone wants to change to a cover article, so I see your point. sterilesporadic heavy hitter 00:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
You already know what the people who think they're stupid think. I think they're stupid. And arbitrary. And give the wrong impression when they're stuck on shitty articles. Just because they have some wikilinks and someone felt like slapping up a template. Etc. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 02:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Just Plain Ignorant Articles

RationalWiki obviously needs this rating category. Some articles in the other sections belong in this one. — Unsigned, by: Starchild / talk / contribs

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support