User talk:Agent Johnson/New Quality System

Examples of Templates
  is a low quality article. Please edit it to make into an Average article. If you are willing to go further, you may expand it to an High article and if you wish to go even further an Ultra article. 

  is an average quality article, but could be even better! Take this article to the next level and beyond by editing it even more by adding pictures, more sections and links. 

  is a high quality article, which is awesome! Please continue to expand this article as much as you can, with more sections, text and anything else you can think of to make it even better! 

  is an ultra quality article! This article is one of the best articles on the wiki, and not many articles get to this stage. Please refrain from making major edits that are not needed unless the user with OOC rights allows you to or if it's a free-add article. 

---

Credit to Ninj for the templates (@Ninjinian -- they're slightly edited from the original).-- Agent Johnson |  You...  21:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

You call this system "less complicated"? While I agree that we need an overhaul of the quality rating system, this is definitely more complicated than the old one. Rating ought to have a little more wiggle room. Can't we just standardize the system we have now?  Yours Truly,   Explorer 767 ( Phagocytosis. Also known as OM NOM NOM!  )   View this template   21:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Silly and unneeded. I haven't read the whole thing (tldr plz) but I read the intro, and can see by the length that there is no need for something this complicated. -- THE SHEEP!  |<font face="Lucida Sans Unicode"><span title="SAVE THE SHOUTBOX!">FIGHTTHEPOWER!   ( Stuff I did and stuff ) 21:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia use it. Uncyclopedia use it. So why can't we?-- Agent Johnson |  You...  21:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

OH MY GOD. How many times must we say it. WE ARE NOT WIKIPEDIA. BTW, Uncyclopedia swear as well. Does that mean we should? If Wikipedia and Uncyclopedia threw themselves off cliffs, would we? -- <font face="Stencil" color ="FFBA00"><span title="My page. No touchie!">THE SHEEP!  |<font face="Lucida Sans Unicode"><span title="SAVE THE SHOUTBOX!">FIGHTTHEPOWER!   ( Stuff I did and stuff ) 21:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * NINE templates. FIVE templates. If you want work on the reviewing to only be three things (content, literacy and reviewer personal opinion) or remove reviewing and the reviewing altogether.


 * Plus the templates are more professional and better looking. Think the old templates as Jordan and the new ones Cheryl Cole. Which is more beautiful? Yeah got you thinking.-- Agent Johnson |  You...  22:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I changed the beginning of each of the templates from "this article about " to the name of the article instead - meaning it's less complicated now. These templates look better. --  ¤   (  User page! ) (  The Cookie Master wishes you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! ) 21:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Nine templates? You're kidding me. There's THREE templates.

Not to mention the new system is filled to the brim with bureacratic crap. We do not need to fill out review forms for every single article on the wiki, and we do not have to elect article reviewers. That's way too much fuss over a simple rating.  Yours Truly,   Explorer 767 ( <span title="Pseudopod-lickin' good!">Phagocytosis. Also known as OM NOM NOM!  )   <span title="Click if you dare!">View this template   22:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

AGREED! NEXT CASE! -- <font face="Stencil" color ="FFBA00"><span title="My page. No touchie!">THE SHEEP!  |<font face="Lucida Sans Unicode"><span title="SAVE THE SHOUTBOX!">FIGHTTHEPOWER!   ( Stuff I did and stuff ) 22:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I said remove the reviewing thing. And there are three options per template. It makes nine. The old system was better. This new system is better cause it removes the three options.-- Agent Johnson |  You...  22:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Then what's the problem with just standardizing the current system? Filling out "rating forms" for each article is a waste of time, too constraining, and too bureaucratic. Just standardize the current system and put it down on paper, so that everyone has a rule of thumb or reference.  Yours Truly,   Explorer 767 ( <span title="Pseudopod-lickin' good!">Phagocytosis. Also known as OM NOM NOM!  )   <span title="Click if you dare!">View this template   22:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that but it's only four options less. Ninji will add the 'orange' option too, making six, if needed. That is three options less. Not much changes, templates look pro and it's generally better and less complex without the bureaucracy or the 'red-tape'.-- Agent Johnson |  You...  22:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Why are there warning signs on the templates? That doesn't make any sense. Also, as I said, standardize the current system. We don't need a new system, just some guidelines on which ratings to pick.  Yours Truly,   Explorer 767 ( <span title="Pseudopod-lickin' good!">Phagocytosis. Also known as OM NOM NOM!  )   <span title="Click if you dare!">View this template   22:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Warning signs - ask Ninji. And standardize this system but instead of nine choices, have six. Ninji has an orange one, he can make it. We would have:


 * Stub
 * Low
 * Orange (name coming soon)
 * Average
 * High
 * Ultra

-- Agent Johnson |  You...  22:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I used the warning signs because... they matched the templates and looked nice. The templates looks too simple without the warning signs. They make the template stand out more.--  ¤   (  User page! ) (  The Cookie Master wishes you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! ) 22:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

don't like the templates, will redesign, and after the vote section I went right to sleep. Make less complicated vote mybe USE THE BLOODY FORUMS -- refractor  this is a thing 23:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I hate the boring pictures. THEY ARE AGONIZINGLY BORING. This is not the CPW and not Wikipedia. Remember the last time you tried to replace our cheesy images with generic Wikipedia icons? -- † TurtleShroom™! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! †    :)  :)  THAT WAS DELICIOUS. <span title="Do you feel the need to preach the word of the Lawd despite no one giving [a stinking care at all]?">    †          †        Never burn money, and especially don't nuke it.  <span style="color: white !important;"><span title="AH HEH HEH HEH HEH! IT'S PROFESSOR LIEBSTROM!!">  ――–   <span style="color: white !important;"> ―――――      22:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I hate the current templates. They're tatty and look like Jordan.-- Agent Johnson |  You...  22:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And they don't even make sense. "Catch attention to the article"? Pffft. You could do the same with a thumbs up for HQA, or a sideways thumb for MQA.  Yours Truly,   Explorer 767 ( <span title="Pseudopod-lickin' good!">Phagocytosis. Also known as OM NOM NOM!  )   <span title="Click if you dare!">View this template   22:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

RALLY THE BASE
Come on people, there must be two more users out there that can vote for the Present system! Now that the Consensus is doctrine... how do I go about persuading without unclean canvassing? -- † TurtleShroom™! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! †    :)  :)  <span title="IF YOU GET SICK, DIE QUICKLY. THAT'S RIGHT, REPUBLICANS WANT YOU TO DIE QUICKLY.">I believe a prize for Peace should go to the biggest wuss! <span title="Do you feel the need to preach the word of the Lawd despite no one giving [a stinking care at all]?">   †          †        He has a chart that helps us learn!  <span style="color: white !important;"><span title="AH HEH HEH HEH HEH! IT'S PROFESSOR LIEBSTROM!!">  ――–   <span style="color: white !important;"> ―――――      23:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Easy, USE PERSUASIVE WRITING!


 * Look guys, we'll have a lot less work to do cleaning up templates and categories and what not if we stick with what we've got. We can even standardize the current system and put down what makes an LQA, an MQA, or an HQA.


 * And who wants to fill out SCORECARDS to rate articles? That's pointless bureaucracy, and it doesn't allow enough wiggle room. Rating should be based on every aspect of an article, not just five things! If we just use some guidelines and not these silly scorecards, we'll be fine!  Yours Truly,   Explorer 767 ( <span title="Pseudopod-lickin' good!">Phagocytosis. Also known as OM NOM NOM!  )   <span title="Click if you dare!">View this template   23:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Explorer, persuasive writing is unclean canvassing: see section Campaigning. I can't persuade on talk pages or discussion areas. -- † TurtleShroom™! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! †    :)  :)  <span title="IF YOU GET SICK, DIE QUICKLY. THAT'S RIGHT, REPUBLICANS WANT YOU TO DIE QUICKLY.">I believe a prize for Peace should go to the biggest wuss! <span title="Do you feel the need to preach the word of the Lawd despite no one giving [a stinking care at all]?">    †          †        He has a chart that helps us learn!  <span style="color: white !important;"><span title="AH HEH HEH HEH HEH! IT'S PROFESSOR LIEBSTROM!!">  ――–   <span style="color: white !important;"> ―――――      23:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Only if it's in a call to vote. I'm just saying why you should vote for the Present System. ;)  Yours Truly,   Explorer 767 ( <span title="Pseudopod-lickin' good!">Phagocytosis. Also known as OM NOM NOM!  )   <span title="Click if you dare!">View this template   23:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah Explorer's right.-- Agent Johnson |  You...  23:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a very liberal way to look at it. By the letter of the law, you are correct, but by the spirit of the law, isn't it the same thing? In America, far-leftists broadly interpret law (like the Constitution) in an elastic means, to squeeze their agenda into a purposefully shackling item. If I tell a man why he should vote this and don't provide a link, it's not campaigning, even though I accomplished the same thing?


 * Or, another example of letter and spirit, from a comic: Knuckles [from Sonic] is reading the governance of the sport of boxing, and is upset that 'spiked' gloves are banned, since that's all he has.
 * Another comment is added, and it reads: Tell the referee that those are not spikes on your gloves, but cones! It doesn't say anything about cones, does it?


 * The letter of the rules of boxing says "no spikes". Knuckles is therefore disqualified. The spirit of the law would include cones, because they are spiky. Get it? If you don't, see the Wikipedia article. -- † TurtleShroom™! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! †    :)  :)  <span title="IF YOU GET SICK, DIE QUICKLY. THAT'S RIGHT, REPUBLICANS WANT YOU TO DIE QUICKLY.">I believe a prize for Peace should go to the biggest wuss! <span title="Do you feel the need to preach the word of the Lawd despite no one giving [a stinking care at all]?">    †          †        He has a chart that helps us learn!  <span style="color: white !important;"><span title="AH HEH HEH HEH HEH! IT'S PROFESSOR LIEBSTROM!!">  ――–   <span style="color: white !important;"> ―――――      23:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Persuasive writing IS allowed anyway. Not as a biased way to invite someone to vote but as what a discussion or an arguement (usually when that happens a Turtle with a Mushroom deletes it).


 * And in the the UK I'd be considered centre-right. Yup, that's how liberal the UK is.-- Agent Johnson |  You...  23:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "I am on nobody's side, because nobody is on my side, all the way..." -Treebeard, Lord of the Rings "The Two Towers". That basically describes how I feel right now. --<font face="Gabriola" color ="green"> Triskelle3  <span title="What's an Elephant?">The Carthaginians are coming over the Alps on Elephants! <span title="Follow him! He speaks in sentences."> My contributions. 23:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

We lost!
No no no no no............... this'll haunt you all, and I'm going to have to re-learn the system to adhere tot his crap. Or, to heck with it: I'll keep doing what I have always done. -- † TurtleShroom™! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! †    :)  :)  <span title="IF YOU GET SICK, DIE QUICKLY. THAT'S RIGHT, REPUBLICANS WANT YOU TO DIE QUICKLY.">I believe a prize for Peace should go to the biggest wuss! <span title="Do you feel the need to preach the word of the Lawd despite no one giving [a stinking care at all]?">   †          †        He has a chart that helps us learn!  <span style="color: white !important;"><span title="AH HEH HEH HEH HEH! IT'S PROFESSOR LIEBSTROM!!">  ――–   <span style="color: white !important;"> ―――――      17:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Good luck redoing the templates on every single article! You'll need it.

In the meantime, I'll see what I can do about those stupid scoring cards. I may not be able to stop the templates, but surely none of you like scoring cards...  Yours Truly,   Explorer 767 ( <span title="Pseudopod-lickin' good!">Phagocytosis. Also known as OM NOM NOM!  )   <span title="Click if you dare!">View this template   17:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Be as stubborn as you please, Explorer. It is only a short form and it should only take about a minute. I don't know why you are making such a big deal out of it. I will face any sarcasm you throw at me, just so you know. And TurtleShroom, this is hardly re-learning anything. And thank you for wishing me good luck Explorer, though I know I will not need it. --  ¤   (  User page! ) (  The Cookie Master wishes you a Happy New Year! ) 18:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you'll need it all right. You're not redesigning templates -- you're PULLING THEM OUT OF THE GROUND and replacing them. Wonder how many articles will break. Then you'll have to sort out categories. Then you'll have to rate HUNDREDS of articles. And with scoring cards. And don't expect Zone to help you.

And I wonder what happens when someone disagrees with your rating! Haven't got rid of those quality wars, now have you?

Good luck.  Yours Truly,   Explorer 767 ( <span title="Pseudopod-lickin' good!">Phagocytosis. Also known as OM NOM NOM!  )   <span title="Click if you dare!">View this template   19:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a great example of the absolutely mature and responsible people who are running this wiki. I'm going to have to re-learn the system to adhere to this crap. Real mature, TS. I'll keep doing what I have always done. you literally can't. You're not redesigning templates -- you're PULLING THEM OUT OF THE GROUND and replacing them. No, the coding's all there. Then you'll have to rate HUNDREDS of articles. Nope. He changes the current templates. Duh. And don't expect Zone to help you. Who're you to decide that? --Metalmanager 23:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Calling what I think is crap by what I think it is, is not immature in my mind. No, immature would be negating the vote because I don't like it. Immaturity would be me reverting the crap back to the superior template because I thought it was crap. Even though it was crap, the Masses have spoken, and sadly, they want crap. Since they have spoken and demanded crap, crap we must give. I don't like it, and Explorer doesn't like it, but we both acknowledge the Will of the Masses over our own. You voted for it and now you must deal with it. I'm still going to use my old system of scoring, but I won't commit the unholy sin of electoral fraud just because I lost the vote. Besides, you voted on impulse: the hideous pictures won you over; you said it yourself! -- † TurtleShroom™! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! †    :)  :)  <span title="IF YOU GET SICK, DIE QUICKLY. THAT'S RIGHT, REPUBLICANS WANT YOU TO DIE QUICKLY.">I believe a prize for Peace should go to the biggest wuss! <span title="Do you feel the need to preach the word of the Lawd despite no one giving [a stinking care at all]?">    †          †        He has a chart that helps us learn!  <span style="color: white !important;"><span title="AH HEH HEH HEH HEH! IT'S PROFESSOR LIEBSTROM!!">  ――–   <span style="color: white !important;"> ―――――      01:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Y'know that's hypocritical, right? You reverted all the pictures and replaced them with...what, CP emotes? "Immaturity would be me reverting the crap (used like 7 times) back to the "superior" template because I don't like it." HOWEVER, you went and messed with the templates. Plus, you CAN'T go rating it like you used to because the Template is changed. Now I don't even like the templates because of your meddling. Frankly-not happy about this.Austin8310 14:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)-