|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Template talk:Rate-priority
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
These need to be deleted still, yes? Peter Monomorium antarcticum 00:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, but that would imply technical competence among the folks who tried to get rid of copper. I still think silver and bronze are useless too. Blue (is useful) 02:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- I did it for 'em. What else is still hanging around? Peter Monomorium antarcticum 02:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Template:Rated still has the copper option available, though it no longer displays the brainstar. I ought to start a discussion/bullying campaign on deleting that template sometime. Blue (is useful) 04:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- You know, it would be nice if the priority were on the page, rather than the talk page. That way I could use the dpl to get 'creationism-high' in a list. Peter Monomorium antarcticum 04:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- The issue with that is that you have to crowd the page with categories, although you can make them hidden you'd still have them in the code and have to apply them to the article and apply a template to the talk page. So I checked WP and that seemed to pu all its rating and priority info on the discussion page which simplifies the situation as you don't then need to synchronise two pages to match up with each other. As this is more for writers and maintenance rather than browsing, taking you to the talk page rather than directly to the article isn't too much of a detour and also takes you, in theory, to a page of meta-information about the article that would be useful in assessing it.
narchist 11:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think articles should have any rating or priority. There is nothing on the main page that leads one to gold rated articles, and anything less than gold gives the impression that it is an unworthy article, "less-than" the rest - why do we have a need to rank them? Same with priority - if someone feels interested in working on a particular article they should, no matter what "priority". Why this need to rank, prioritize, categorize, segregate, label, etc.,? Some organization is good, but all this ranking and rating seems a bit overboard. Refugeetalk page 17:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- It's given people a motive to improve and expand certain articles. theist 17:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- We could always have a page called "articles needing improving" or something like that. Refugeetalk page 17:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Category:Articles requiring attention at your service. Though it only currently contains articles with deficiencies. Blue (is useful) 17:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- We could always have a page called "articles needing improving" or something like that. Refugeetalk page 17:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- It's given people a motive to improve and expand certain articles.
- I don't think articles should have any rating or priority. There is nothing on the main page that leads one to gold rated articles, and anything less than gold gives the impression that it is an unworthy article, "less-than" the rest - why do we have a need to rank them? Same with priority - if someone feels interested in working on a particular article they should, no matter what "priority". Why this need to rank, prioritize, categorize, segregate, label, etc.,? Some organization is good, but all this ranking and rating seems a bit overboard. Refugeetalk page 17:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- The issue with that is that you have to crowd the page with categories, although you can make them hidden you'd still have them in the code and have to apply them to the article and apply a template to the talk page. So I checked WP and that seemed to pu all its rating and priority info on the discussion page which simplifies the situation as you don't then need to synchronise two pages to match up with each other. As this is more for writers and maintenance rather than browsing, taking you to the talk page rather than directly to the article isn't too much of a detour and also takes you, in theory, to a page of meta-information about the article that would be useful in assessing it.
- You know, it would be nice if the priority were on the page, rather than the talk page. That way I could use the dpl to get 'creationism-high' in a list. Peter Monomorium antarcticum 04:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Template:Rated still has the copper option available, though it no longer displays the brainstar. I ought to start a discussion/bullying campaign on deleting that template sometime. Blue (is useful) 04:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- I did it for 'em. What else is still hanging around? Peter Monomorium antarcticum 02:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
"Gold" is the de facto rating given to "cover story" articles. The entire brainstar system, otherwise, is complete shit. The talk page templating is worse than shit. ħuman
05:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)