RationalWiki talk:Article rating/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 18 December 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Excellent!

This is just the thing. So do we start festooning articles with brains now? - David Gerard (talk) 14:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

yes, let's clog recent changes for a week! Totnesmartin (talk) 14:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to stop for now. Having the brain symbol up against the first line or two of text just looks wrong. We should try to find a way of getting on the same line as the title. Totnesmartin (talk) 15:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Apart from that - sounds like a plan! - David Gerard (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Can we go slow until we've fixed some presentation issues? ^narchist 17:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You mean, until we work out how not to break every featured page on the wiki? But but but I'm back at work tomorrow! - David Gerard (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=User:Nx&oldid=578846 -- Nx / talk 17:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Did you just hack the crap out of DISPLAYTITLE? ^narchist 17:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice :-) Does it work with 50px brainstars? The 20px ones look like smudges, not brains - David Gerard (talk) 17:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

50px would be a little overkill. I've redone them with 25px and it seems infinitely better without it being too big. Trouble is that the other skins may be an issue, particularly the blue one as the 20px version fitted quite snuggly into that blue band at the top. ^narchist 17:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Modern is a bit silly at 50px. Monobook looks great, though - David Gerard (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

I move that my excellent Corrs Conundrum be given gold cover story status. Immediately. And for ever. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 14:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Only if my John Woo gets the same. Totnesmartin (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Corrs Conundrum gets my vote for a bronze or silver. --^{Ask me about our kite} 17:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

We have a "best of amusement" and "best of conservapedia" categories, I think we should exclude non-mainspace articles from this. ^narchist 17:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh I don't know - how are we going to find the genuinely funny articles among the thousands of "this is crap, move it to fun" entries? Totnesmartin (talk) 18:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay

I've given "random page" a whirl and added some stars to what I'd consider passes. I should have actually kept count but I've finding about 1 in 5 are getting bronze. Which is pretty good. I originally thought this first level would be a fairly high attainment. So, the question now remains of whether to continue as I am, or try to boost the criteria a little to make it somewhat more exclusive. ^narchist 18:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Try going via Special:popularpages and special:longpages, as the top-ranked entries are likely to have enough decent content. That'll save you randomly getting loads of stubs. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The idea behind "random" was also to get a feel for how many there would be out of the entire bunch - and I think it'd be a better than going by popular pages downward for that purpose. But yeah, for figuring it out, that'd be a better place to start. However, quality isn't always about absolute size. ^narchist 18:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Aye, we (ie you) have to be careful to keep it quite exclusive, otherwise it becomes pointless and devalued if everything's got one (kind of like getting 98% on an Assfly exam) DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 18:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. I think we should be seriously tight with Silver, and not do Gold without discussion (unless it's hellishly obvious, and even then, stick a note on the talk page with a justification and let people squabble) but the Bronze we can get away with being a little more lax with, sort of just sorting wheat from the chaff, as it were. ^narchist 18:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea of a "non-exclusive" level that signifies quality work that can be built upon. I think one of the criteria for bronze should be "extendability" or something of the like. That the article has potential to move up the ranks. Some of our articles have less room for expansion than others. Bronze should signify that it meets basic standards, but should also serve as an entry point for people that really want to try and improve the site by improving existing articles. I think silver and gold can certainly be much more discerning. Just my thoughts. tmtoulouse 18:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Heh heh, "extendability", I like the sound of that! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 18:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hurr hurr... but a very good point nonetheless. However, while "extendibility" is certainly a worthwhile factor, I wouldn't want to use that to stop certain articles getting some recognition. I fully envisage that some articles may never get into a higher bracket because the material just isn't right for it. ^narchist 18:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

One in five is fine by me and constitutes not doing too badly IMO - David Gerard (talk) 19:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

And may I say that continuous requirement creep on Wikipedia has always really pissed me off - David Gerard (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Steelbrain and fun

If steelbrain isn't ever going to be used, should it be in the article? also, if this rating system comes off I'd like to do a simpler version for fun articles, with baloons instead of brains. Totnesmartin (talk) 08:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I like that. What about the Conservapedia: namespace? Golden buttocks? - David Gerard (talk) 11:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I like that idea. Should be a .gif as well. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Bronze criterion

"Article contains references and external links" - does this mean external links separate from references, or do refs which are ELs count? At the moment I'm not bronzing perfectly good articles like Judaism and Michelle Malkin for want only of ELs which aren't refs. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

That sounds kinda silly - we'll get people adding external links just for the sake of it to articles which don't really need them. If it's a good article, it's a good article, irrespective of how many links it has. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

OK then. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Like all "rules" on RW, there's a lot of wiggle room and people are free to change it if they like - it's not hard and fast by any means. I only added something about references in the proposal as a proxy for the reliability of the article and as an indicator that actual research was done to back it up. They also give readers somewhere else to go to learn more if necessary, which is the main reason these articles exist. ^narchist 14:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I did a quick clarification on that. When it says external links, it should really mean a link off-site to back up the content of the article. Doesn't matter if it's in a ref tag or not but they should be grouped preferably. ^narchist 14:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It has just occured to me that there isn't really a benchmark for what silver actually is. Currently it seems to be using the quality + quantity of the referencing as a proxy of quality, but there should also be something about length and writing style there. The lack of excessive snark and humour is already in the criteria for bronze, there needs to be another easy to spot and quantify factor for silver. ^narchist 13:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Internal links

There's a lot in these guidelines about external links but almost nothing about internal links, which are much more important in terms of building & maintaining a navigable wiki. Every article should have see-alsos, wikilinks & at least one category. I reckon that rated articles should probably be in multiple categories. And, equally importantly, they should also be linked to from other articles where appropriate. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Wiki links both ways are vital, yes. See also may be unnecessary, though, if all relevant topics are linked in the text. And sometimes an article only belongs in one category. However, "one" should obviously be the minimum number of cats. ħuman 23:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I take your point on categories, in that a few articles genuinely fit in only one category & shouldn't be barred from bronze status or whatever because of this. But we have a lot of categories & most article subjects relates to multiple ones, so if an article only has one, users should at least check for other appropriate categories. I disagree on see-alsos - I think all substantial articles should have them, in order to look like a proper wiki article & not a dead end page, even if they repeat links which are already in the article text. Not all readers will read the whole article, and those who scan it or only read parts of it may miss important links if they are buried in one of the middle sections and not repeated in "see also". Those who do read the whole thing can then proceed to a relevant page when they reach the end, without needing to scroll back up & find the link in the text again. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Huh. I tend to remove those as redundant - "see also" is for stuff that isn't already in the text. And if they're not going to read, too bad.

At this point I must most strongly caution against arbitrarily adding requirements. Instruction creep is real. DO NOT ADD HARD REQUIREMENTS, EVER, UNLESS YOU REALLY HAVE TO. You can't legislate good taste - David Gerard (talk) 01:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

But internal links & categories are a pretty basic criterion for good wiki content. I find it strange that external links are listed as a hard requirement (when a short article can sometimes do without them, IMO) while internal links aren't even mentioned. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 09:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

That actually made little sense. Although, are El's listed as a criterion? Kill that. ħuman 09:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they're listed under bronze, silver & gold on this page. Which part made little sense? Essentially I'm suggesting that instead of requiring "appropriate references and/or external links", rated article should require "appropriate internal and external links, categories, and references if appropriate". Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 09:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I suspect I wasn't responding to you. Sometimes I edit "stale" versions and don't notice the more recent edits, my bad. What you said made sense. ħuman 11:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow

I actually just read this crap for the first time. I am embarrassed for us. People too lazy to link to "manual of style" want to tell us how to rate articles??? Wow. I gave up after "bronze". ħuman 09:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

In retrospect, I think this whole "project" is a total disaster, based on what some people think makes a good RW article, but can't really articulate it, but like to write "rules". ħuman 09:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You're right, what a stupid idea. Actually, what's the point in writing articles anyway, everyone knows RW only exists to troll Conservapedia. -- Nx / talk 11:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you finally noticed that this pile of turd was here after, what, a month or so? It was proposed in a forum post. It was liked. It was copied here. The fact that no one really complained about the content of it made everyone assume it was acceptable. ^narchist 08:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, now that some of us are going back to the basics on this site, me thinks that the discussion on what qualifies something as (fill in the blank) rating should be re-opened. Conservative Punk (talk) 08:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think "re-opened" is the word as it was never "closed" to begin with. But if you mean that people want to take a break from the main focus of the site, which is self-evidently being drama queens and discussing what to do with troublesome wank stains, and move onto those fiddly little background details like the quality of our articles and the validity of the information contained within them. ^narchist 09:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

David Gerard's response in the section above didn't exactly reassure me that the rating criteria were still open for discussion & improvement. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 10:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Whuh? Sorry if I came across as unduly snippy. I think the rating criteria are open for discussion and improvement. I just strongly caution against instruction creep, having seen how it developed on Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 12:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I think in practice this is a great idea, even if it somehow happened without Human noticing. It's an incentive to actually make our article text better. To make our good articles great and our on-topic articles good. I suggest it's actually working too, therefore is a good thing. In moderation - David Gerard (talk) 12:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

"White" Articles instead of ordinary?

I think that, instead of having an "Ordinary" articles category, we should call those articles "White" articles or something, so that we can have a brainstar for them. That way, they can be categorized accordingly, and people can look at those first for improvement. Conservative Punk (talk) 08:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Nah. Setting white as default would imply that articles have already been assessed & rated when they haven't. & Manually tagging everything white would be a massive time-wasting exercise. If we are to go through articles one by one, it should be to improve them up to rated standard, not just stamp them with a white non-rating rating. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I think a dpl list might be able to do it. We have the stub category of course, but every article that is not in stub or bronze or silver or gold would be the ones in question? ħuman 19:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a matter of coding; if it can be done, it'd be nice to have the brain icon in "average" articles. As it is, it took me a while to realize they exist, though I might just be myopic. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 19:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions / amendments

• Articles should contain original content, not text copied & pasted from elsewhere (even from non-copyright sources) - bronze / all rated articles.
• Current text on silver says "article is free of basic errors". What the hell does this mean? Are basic errors OK in bronze articles? Can silver articles contain complex errors but not basic errors? What's the difference? What the fuck does this mean? Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it means bronze might have a typo or simple spelling error once in a while, but silvers may not. Silver articles have built-in autospellcheckers to maintain this policy. ħuman 00:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I like that one. As for the "basic errors" thing, it meant blatant spelling errors and grammar errors, i.e., the content was completely readable. But remember, this was copied in from a rough draft I did quite quickly and it hasn't been modified much, I assume it will need clarifying. ^narchist 11:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I want to move a criterion

Can we move "Article is free of blatant spelling and grammar errors" to bronze? It would seem to be such a basic requirement, after all. ħuman 02:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

+1. Literary infelicities are more opinion, but basic spelling and grammar should be in place - David Gerard (talk) 11:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Wholly agree with changing this for two reasons:

• Articles SHOULD not be recognised as a "Good Article" unless it is well spelt.
• This is a good opportunity for checking. We have 34 silver articles, and 373 bronze articles. That's to say A LOT of new articles will reach bronze status, then never reach silver. Once an article becomes bronze, it's more likely to just get left to stagnate. However, if someone wants to make it bronze and has to copyedit it properly, it will get done. Pending an objection in the next week, can we just move this? ^EXTERMINATE 14:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion here:

Forum:Article Rating System <--- here. ^EXTERMINATE 19:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Revive?

Giving a gold article a rating of 3, silver 2, and bronze 1, Our average is about ~.1. I've nominated several articles for bronze, it seems that nobody has noticed. As bronze criteria seems to be rather simple, if nobody objects, I'm going to start going through mainspace and marking articles I feel bronze worthy as bronze as bronze. Тy^YAUA 13:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead. - π 13:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Alrighty. Тy^No 13:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The point is not to "rate" or nominate every damn article to raise the average, but to IMPROVE articles if we want more medal-winners. That's right, "medal winners", not just random silly tags everywhere in sight. ħuman 02:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Pre-bronze

There are a significant number of articles that nearly meet the bronze criteria, but shouldn't get that brainstar. I think we should implement a pre-bronze level, called tin or copper. Blue (is useful) 21:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

*coinflip* tin! Works for me. 21:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Voila:

Pre-bronze-level articles

Add {{Pre-bronze}} to bronze-rated articles. (List of pre-bronze-rated articles)

Pre-bronze: Not quite a good article

• Article must not be a stub or VSA and should not be tagged with any of the "articles requiring attention" categories.
• Article should be close to achieving the bronze criteria without a major overhaul
• Article must have at least a few footnotes and references, and be in at least one content category
• Article should contain at least one subsection

... For your consideration. Blue (is useful) 23:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Prebronze sounds clunky. Copper perhaps? 23:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Copper would be good except it looks very similar to bronze, and the brain we use for bronze is actually rendered with a copper texture. Blue (is useful) 00:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, here's an actual bronze texture, it doesn't look very good: -- Nx / talk 06:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, the greenish one could also be bronze. Hmm, corroded? Patina? Tarnish? Space rock? 00:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, the criteria is fine btw. 01:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it basically is a way of saying "We've got something to work with here." I wouldn't mind copper if we can't think of anything better. Blue (is useful) 03:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

All in favor of copper for the patina brain? Blue (is useful) 22:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, fine. Aye. 22:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Bunp. Blue (is useful) 00:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The silence is deafening. Ty^talk 14:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to go through with the change and let God sort it out. Blue (is useful) 19:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

What about that jelly brain I've heard about? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Jellybrain.png? Blue (is useful) 19:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous concept. What's next, "stone" articles? ħuman 02:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Copper???

Wtf that is stupid. ħuman 03:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

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

No one cares? What it this, the Special Olympics for articles, everyone gets a medal? Copper??? ħuman 02:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I wondered where the fuck cooper came from. Agree with Human. Ace^Moderator 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. 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. ħuman 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? Ace^Moderator 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. sterile^talk 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. sterile^talk 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. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks 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 Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 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)

Vote?

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)

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. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
5. Whatevers. Ty^Annoy 00:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

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. Blue (is useful) 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. Blue (pester) 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. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks 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. Blue (pester) 00:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

   And there's silver on the main page. Ty^Annoy 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. GodotGrow 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)

So

Now what? Тy^Yes? 14:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Tungsten. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Arguably my favorite metal. We should add Platinum and Palladium as well.Тy^eh? 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. ^gnostic 21:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I, personally, like the idea of a "Californium" level of articles. The Symphony of Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 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. ^moral 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 Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 12:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

You're still using plutonium? I got a Mr Fusion last week, they're getting quite reasonable now. Sophie^{because 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 Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 19:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

What about Pandemonium? Генгис^unbelieving 13:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, so this is what nostalgia feels like. ^theist 12:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

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. ħuman 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. GodotGrow a vagina 03:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Woooo, I like the Mass bullying part. Ace^Moderator 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. ;-) GodotGrow a vagina 03:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Dumb and ridiculous

Well? It's dumb and ridiculous, and useless. Peter, not even sure what that template is for. ħuman 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. Blue (pester) 06:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

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. Ace^Moderator 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.....Ace^Moderator 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. Ace^Moderator 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. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Ace for Ruler-Overlord of RationalWiki!!! The Symphony of Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 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 (is useful) 22:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

No!!!! I think this is worthy of a good old fashioned HCM!!! </sarcasm> The Symphony of Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 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. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks 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 Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 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. Sophie^{because 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. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 08:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

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. Blue (is useful) 01:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Fine. Ty^JFBAA 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. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Uh, bump. Blue (is useful) 23:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Might as well start getting rid of it. Ty^JFBAA 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. sterile^{sporadic 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. 02:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)