Template talk:Rated

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)

Priority
I'm going to rig this to includeonly 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 too. ADK ...I'll annihilate your businessman!  13:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Ratings
What exactly is the criteria for deciding how important an article is to the wiki?-- 18:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * MISSION Тy rannis 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.-- 18:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have fingers? Тy No 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--  18:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Then stop complaining. Тy rant 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?-- 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)

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)
 * It's supposed to say "this category related article has been rated bronze" -- Nx  / talk 18:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

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. 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? 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? 19:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * First bot run failed because I told it to change the bronze ones to silver before changing the silver ones to bronze, and so on. Fixed it, trying again, starting with the gold ones. 21:21, 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)
 * Har har har. 21:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Copper. Worst idea I have ever seen. This template. Second worst. Please kill them both with fire. 03:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

To be implemented perhaps

 * 1) I run a bot to remove the 1-rated articles
 * 2) The 1-rating becomes the standard unquality/no-brainstar default
 * 3) The 0-rating is redefined as "article is problematic"
 * 4) 0-rated articles are in one or more of certain categories in the "articles requiring attention" category
 * 5) The template would, in this case, grab the list of hidden categories from the article and display them like
 * 6) * This article has multiple issues:
 * 7) ** It contains unsourced statements (from Category:Articles with unsourced statements)
 * 8) ** It requires RWification (from Category:Articles needing RWification)
 * 9) ** It requires updating (from Category:Articles needing updates)
 * 10) This could be implemented either
 * 11) as a script in Common.js (better in practice but not universally applicable), or
 * 12) as a manually updated parameter in the template, aided by the use of the HotArticleRate gadget

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.  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! Scarlet A.png<font color=#CC0033>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." 02:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair. 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. 13:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Got to say, I love the addition of "it's just really fucked up, guys" Scarlet A.png<font color=#CC0033>sshole 16:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

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... 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)
 * You can add it manually if you want, but the gadget should add it automatically. 04:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

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)
 * The template has been in a state of perpetual brokenness since someone went and got rid of copper, but as soon as I'm done with the above I'll update the docs. 17:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. 04:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Adds talk pages to categories (and it shouldn't)
The current code of the template adds the talk pages on which the template is used to a category if that category is specified. Examples: Talk:Cain and Talk:Joseph (husband of Mary).--ZooGuard (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that was something FuzzyCatPotato did in recent edits. I don't know what the purpose of it is.  21:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It was me. It's the only way to have Category:HIGH priority articles etc. and Category:Cover story articles etc. be used simultaneously in a DPL. As I said on Category talk:High priority, I would like a template that adds Category:HIGH priority articles etc. to pages themselves, but until the Autorate gadget can be edited to include said template, this isn't possible to do in an organized fashion.
 * tl;dr it's a stopgap, blame Autorate 23:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be better to get rid of HIGH/MID/LOW priority ratings, which appear to be no more than an arbitrary judgement call by whatever editor applies them, & just keep the GOLD/SILVER/BRONZE ratings which are actually meaningfully defined with some guidelines. 23:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, we could provide a meaningful definition for HIGH/MID/LOW priority ratings, to match the Cover story/Silver/Bronze quality ratings. 00:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's something that should have been done three or four years ago before they were applied to anything. Trying to post-rationalise them now when they're already spread across over a thousand articles with no consistent standard is going to be tough one.  And I do also question the value of the whole concept.  Obviously it's useful to flag articles of high importance so that we can keep an eye on their quality, which is why we've always (since way before this rating stuff) had a category for high priority articles (the one that you emptied and deleted recently).  But as for tagging articles as "mid" or "low", what's the point?  Is it supposed to discourage editors from bothering with them or something?   00:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not defending the current implementation of the HIGH/MID/LOW priority ratings, merely that they can be useful, so I don't think I qualify for "post-rationalization". And I'm still supporting an edit of the Autorate gadget, which would fix this issue in the future.
 * Yes, I emptied and deleted Category:High priority. Redundancy is redundant.
 * I can think of three (minor) reasons for having MID/LOW ratings: (1) If an editor is considering a major revision of an article, but they know that an article is LOW rated, then they might know that it would be better for RationalWiki if they used their energy elsewhere. (2) Not all articles are rated. If an article is unrated, then it's impossible to tell if it's merely not in Category:High priority or if instead nobody had rated it yet. Having non-HIGH ratings lets one know that the article truly isn't relevant, even by RW standards. {That said, this would only support a HIGH rating or a nonHIGH rating.} (3) It just looks nice, man. 01:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Get rid of this
Reasons to get rid of this:
 * There's a perfectly good way of rating articles already - addingbronze to the article's front page.
 * The hotarticlerate gadget vanished when the gadgets tab disappeared from preferences.
 * the low/med/high priority system is pointless (as stated above, what good is it? is it for telling people not to bother with an article?).
 * The priority system is inconsistently applied according to the whim of {whichever long-departed editor rated the article years ago.

I suggest removing all the ratings stuff and just keeping, unhidden, the list of jobs. Bicycle wheel  20:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Bronze rates the article page. Rated rates the talk page. This is useful for automatically generating important-article lists (such as here, on the bottom), unless we want to make a template for article pages themselves to parallel bronze/silver/gold but with low/mid/high ratings.
 * Gadgets sometimes work sometimes don't. Not Template:Rated's fault.
 * Importance ratings aren't necessarily pointless. If done right, they'd let people know which articles are mission-critical and need improvement or mission-tangential and don't. Certainly WP thinks they're useful.
 * Then we can update them?
 * I'd be fine with killing this template if a suitable alternative exists. FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 21:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Rigged this up: User:FuzzyCatPotato/Pri. Still allows low/med/high/whatever rating, but isn't on talk page. In action at Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge. Thoughts? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 21:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We're not WP, we're not as big as WP and we don't have to blindly follow what they do. Bicycle  wheel silverbrain.png 22:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That template could be a start - the word needs to be smaller and perhaps just be a category - perhaps within the rating template so covers both?  Bicycle  wheel silverbrain.png 22:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no specific criteria for priority nor system for determining it. It certainly doesn't reflect how much attention articles generate.  It's just an individual's arbitrary ideal about how important things should be to us.  23:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll edit my thingy, see if you like. What do you mean by "just be a category"? I'd keep it a separate template, just because less code duplication. (It'd be the same stuff over 3 templates.)
 * If it's arbitrary, then create some nonarbitrary criteria. I think ratings should be based on (1) how likely RW is to be the only good & major skeptical source on something (I've found very few thorough and thoroughly skeptical articles on Vaginal steaming, for example) (2) how likely the topic is to draw visitors to RW (Gamergate, for example). Those are both arbitrary, but less arbitrary than now. FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 23:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What difference is it supposed to make? 23:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What difference is what supposed to make? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 23:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If I (as a reader or editor) see an article marked as "low priority", what am I supposed to think about it? 23:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That it's unlikely to draw visitors and/or already exists elsewhere and/or isn't mission-crucial. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 23:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * How is that not already covered within the brainstar system? 00:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Cuz brainstar is just (or mostly) about quality. Pseudoscience is silver; is it less important than 101 evidences? Deepak Chopra is bronze; is he less important than Mike Adams? FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 00:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * BW, thoughts on new template? ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 22:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * bump FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ﹐ Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 14:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We still don't need it, there's nothing wrong with the present one - David Gerard (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep it. The rating system is fine, even if ambiguity confuses you - David Gerard (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk pages again
See also the old discussion above. David Gerard removed the code responsible in April, FCP restored it just now.--ZooGuard (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * @David Gerard: Either this page can add talkpages to categories, or we need an alternative that goes on the page itself (see user:FuzzyCatPotato/Pri for an example), because otherwise it's impossible to construct lists of important pages with DPL. FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 18:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I see the problem you're trying to solve ... hmm. Wonder if hidden categories would help - David Gerard (talk) 21:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Only if we put all talkpages about atheism articles into, ie, "Talk pages for atheism-related articles" or something, which seems redundant. I say phase out rated and go for an on-page importance rating. ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 22:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Which is more useful, the template or the categorisation? - David Gerard (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Categorization, for sure. When has seeing this template at the top of a page ever helped you make it a better page? Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 17:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposal
We should begin using Pri and remove the talk-page-categorization bit of this template. This would avoid the DPL issues mentioned here, because it would be used on the page itself, and so talk pages wouldn't have to be categorized (which is necessary for Template:Category to make its "most important" articles list). 02:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * ehh whatever works and doesn't break everything - David Gerard (talk) 14:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Showing nuts and bolts
I think it's fine, it gives a mild impetus to do work on the topic if it's high or mid. 20:36, 26 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I can't say I'm a fan at all, this belongs on the talk page not the article page. The brainstar is bragging, the importance rating is a maintenance message - David Gerard (talk) 23:49, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I would say that I have to agree with David.
 * by the way, I didn't see your earlier comment about this... In general, I think that if no one or only a single person replies to a proposal such this then that's probably more indicative that very few people have actually seen the comment, rather than silent approval...
 * By the way 2, I also don't quite understand what problem is being fixed here? Carpetsmoker (talk) 23:58, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Remove this template
pri plus bronze/silver/gold do the same job on the mainpage, which is better for template and DPL reasons. What unique purpose does this template now serve? 23:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's the talkpage counterpart of the above templates, plus it allows for some 'editorial comments' and neatens up the top of a talkpage (much like the sidebars do on the mainpage).--JorisEnter (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yea, but we don't need a talkpage counterpart -- especially because the main page and talk pages will tend not to match up when people change one but not the other. 15:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This is why I suggested several times that you and CarpetSmoker take care not to break the linkage between the two when someone hits "rate" - David Gerard (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The simplest thing to do would be to have the "rate" option also add the correct version of pri to the main page. It already does so for the bronze/silver/gold bit, so I suppose it should be possible to doe the same for pri.--JorisEnter (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * @DG: "Rate" and all gadgets were nigh-broken for over a year. They may well be broken until RW updates MediaWiki. This is better. (And I'd gladly mess with the Rate gadget, if I can get access. 20:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

"FUCK ALL" priority
Can't find any articles with that rating. What's it used for?--JorisEnter (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It was used for Maratreanism when that was in article space - David Gerard (talk) 09:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it was on at least one of the Gamergate pages at some point. 23:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Removal of ratings
Did we agree to remove ratings? 20:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * We agreed to remove the priorities, this is useful though. Christopher (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)