Template talk:Rated
Contents |
[edit] More explanations?
I think we should add a link explaining the quality levels to the template (e.g. a link to RationalWiki:Article rating). Some guidelines on how to determine the priority level and/or act on it would be good, too.--ZooGuard (talk) 11:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- And also
{{vte}}, I'll put that on in a moment. ADK...I'll bescumber your university! 22:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)- To be honest, I didn't put that much thought into the priority. We do have Category:High priority but it's not transcluded with or associated with this template. ADK...I'll kill your daydream! 22:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Priority
I'm going to rig this to includeonly [[Category:{{{4}}} priority articles]] if no one objects. This will probably then supercede the existing high-priority category. ADK...I'll murder your jelly! 13:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- And {{DEFAULTSORT:PAGENAME}} too. ADK...I'll annihilate your businessman! 13:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Ratings
What exactly is the criteria for deciding how important an article is to the wiki?--"Shut up, Brx." 18:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- RW:MISSION Тyrannis 18:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Well I see a lot of articles being ranked as low even though they refute pseudoscience and analyze authoritarianism and whatnot.--"Shut up, Brx." 18:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Do you have fingers? ТyNo 18:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- You mean you want me to be proactive and rate articles as I see fit, then let the mob have at my changes? If that's what you mean then no, I don't have fingers. Using them is too much work--"Shut up, Brx." 18:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Then stop complaining. Тyrant 18:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Make it up. Major topics are HIGH, big topics within a major one or MID. Anything too specialised, obscure or lacking missionality is LOW. ADK...I'll mollify your buddy! 19:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Why is smoking low?--"Shut up, Brx." 19:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Change it if you're not satisfied, it's just a way of cross-referencing the article rating with importance. ADK...I'll golf your ooze! 19:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Why is smoking low?--"Shut up, Brx." 19:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Make it up. Major topics are HIGH, big topics within a major one or MID. Anything too specialised, obscure or lacking missionality is LOW. ADK...I'll mollify your buddy! 19:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Then stop complaining. Тyrant 18:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- You mean you want me to be proactive and rate articles as I see fit, then let the mob have at my changes? If that's what you mean then no, I don't have fingers. Using them is too much work--"Shut up, Brx." 18:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Do you have fingers? ТyNo 18:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Well I see a lot of articles being ranked as low even though they refute pseudoscience and analyze authoritarianism and whatnot.--"Shut up, Brx." 18:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Redundant
A little redundant to say that this bronze rated article has been rated bronze, no? Also, should say article not articles. steriletalk 16:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- Where does it do that? ADK...I'll watch your operating theater! 16:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Warning
I am about to break this template by including the new copper rating. It will remain borked until I have run my bot on every single rated article, changing 1's to 2's and so on.
Liquid Blue 19:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Is this a good idea? -- Nx / talk 19:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'll lay off. You have ~1 hour until ADK gets back. Nobody else is rating much today. Tytalk 19:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Do you mean changing the template before the articles, or the whole idea of a new rating?
Liquid Blue 19:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Why not just make the new rating 11 or something -- Nx / talk 19:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- How about I run the bot to change the instances of the template before changing the template itself?
Liquid Blue 19:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- But why not make it all a little louder and make 10 the loudest? ADK...I'll pilot your sacrifice! 21:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- How about I run the bot to change the instances of the template before changing the template itself?
- Why not just make the new rating 11 or something -- Nx / talk 19:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Do you mean changing the template before the articles, or the whole idea of a new rating?
- I'll lay off. You have ~1 hour until ADK gets back. Nobody else is rating much today. Tytalk 19:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Copper. Worst idea I have ever seen. This template. Second worst. Please kill them both with fire. ħuman
03:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
[edit] To be implemented perhaps
- I run a bot to remove the 1-rated articles
- The 1-rating becomes the standard unquality/no-brainstar default
- The 0-rating is redefined as "article is problematic"
- 0-rated articles are in one or more of certain categories in the "articles requiring attention" category
- The template would, in this case, grab the list of hidden categories from the article and display them like
- This article has multiple issues:
- It contains unsourced statements (from Category:Articles with unsourced statements)
- It requires RWification (from Category:Articles needing RWification)
- It requires updating (from Category:Articles needing updates)
- This article has multiple issues:
- This could be implemented either
- as a script in Common.js (better in practice but not universally applicable), or
- as a manually updated parameter in the template, aided by the use of the HotArticleRate gadget
Acer Blue 21:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- I think issues with the ratings & priorities should be discussed somewhere central like a forum thread or project page rather than just on template talk pages, to get some proper community input before further changes. Personally, I have some misgivings about the priority groups, like the fact that there appear to be no documented criteria or guidelines for high/low/mid priority, & they tend to just be the opinion of whoever puts the template up, with little relation to what priority the community is actually giving an article. Wēāŝēīōīď
Methinks it is a Weasel 21:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- I feel like being an arse so I'll come out and say it: if people spent just 1/10th of the time they spend bitching about a lack of criteria on actually constructively suggesting some criteria we'd have this problem licked. But even if we did put hard-and-fast criteria down, who would read it? Who would pay attention to it? Who would enforce it consistently? It'd just be yet another layer of bureaucracy for people to bitch and complain and argue about - "but the rules say!!" "but the rules are WRONG!". I assume people are familiar with the community standards and how it all seemed to be a super great Constitution-like document when it came to whining about its content but was reduced to "well, they be more guidelines" when it came to actually following it - and of course, we vote on everything anyway so it's hardly necessary to have it written down.
- At least with a vague sense of low, mid, and high then people can use something called "judgement", and if someone disagrees, well, they can change it, or discuss it in a civil manner (and that seems to be serving us pretty fine right now). The notion is only there so we can cross-reference quality with some vague idea of priority, that's all, there's no real rule saying you MUST edit ONLY high priority articles, so hammering out pages and pages and pages and voting and voting and voting and voting again is just a waste of time. In fact, because of the complete lack of rules and regulations over this, it's arguably one of the more successful things we've ever made!
moral 21:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- As much as you're a capricious aspie fascist who ruined RW, Armondikov, I think you of all people understand this community. And what's more, you understand it in a way that lets you articulate what's going on quite well. And I'm going to prepare this change slowly, implement it all at once, and deal with the fallout afterward. Because one of the cardinal rules of RW is, "If it looks boring enough, nobody will question what you're doing to the site."
Liquid Blue 02:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- As much as you're a capricious aspie fascist who ruined RW, Armondikov, I think you of all people understand this community. And what's more, you understand it in a way that lets you articulate what's going on quite well. And I'm going to prepare this change slowly, implement it all at once, and deal with the fallout afterward. Because one of the cardinal rules of RW is, "If it looks boring enough, nobody will question what you're doing to the site."
Look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair.
Liquid Blue 04:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- "Significantly problematic"? Does that add a cat or how does it work when it comes to finding them? Peter with added ‼Science‼ 05:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- It would add the category "Talk pages for significantly problematic articles" or some equivalent, corresponding to Category:Talk pages for unrated articles and such. With the aid of the HotArticleRate gadget - which I plan to modify accordingly - the particular categories in Category:Articles requiring attention to which the article in question belongs would be noted using instances of
{{Rated/sandbox/comments}}. I've updated the testcases page for an example.
Liquid Blue 13:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Got to say, I love the addition of "it's just really fucked up, guys"
sshole 16:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Got to say, I love the addition of "it's just really fucked up, guys"
- It would add the category "Talk pages for significantly problematic articles" or some equivalent, corresponding to Category:Talk pages for unrated articles and such. With the aid of the HotArticleRate gadget - which I plan to modify accordingly - the particular categories in Category:Articles requiring attention to which the article in question belongs would be noted using instances of
Well, that's done. Let me know if you discover any bugs in either the template or the gadget. All that's left now is to update the documentation...
Acer Blue 04:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- So I have to add the 'problem' template to the comment manually, or how does that work? Could some buttons be made for that? Peter with added ‼Science‼ 04:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Update the damn documentation
I haven't a clue what you all have done, but the documentation ain't right. sterileevolutionist story telling 13:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)