RationalWiki talk:Article rating

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives for this talk page: <1>, (new)

Godamned stupid copper debate[edit]

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. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Ace for Ruler-Overlord of RationalWiki!!! Lord of Reckless Noise Hooray! I'm helping! 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? Blue Talk 22:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
No!!!! I think this is worthy of a good old fashioned HCM!!! </sarcasm> Lord of Reckless Noise Hooray! I'm helping! 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. WeaseloidWeaselly.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. Lord of Reckless Noise Hooray! I'm helping! 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)

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

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. Blue Talk 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. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 08:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Uh, bump. Blue Talk 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)

Just Plain Ignorant Articles[edit]

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

HIGH / MID / LOW ratings[edit]

Can we add an explanation for these ratings to this page? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 18:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Done, I think. CorruptUser (talk) 05:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


Have different types of brain - birdbrain, 'amoeba brain', 'brainwarped' etc. Anna Livia (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

A modest proposal[edit]

I suggest that for bronze articles we should require that there are no "naked URL" links (in other words, all citations are within <ref></ref> tags and are properly written citations. --Goatspeed. Stalk me🎃CircularREmail2.gifasoning🎃See my experiments 22:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

That sounds wise. Twodots Annoy me Look, ma! 22:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
That's perfectly reasonable. I'd prefer that it would be a strong suggestion rather than a requirement, though. That kind of thing is usually pretty easy to clean up. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 22:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be a requirement if it's easy and improves the article's appearance? Twodots Annoy me Look, ma! 22:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)