User:Agent Johnson/New Quality System

No more voting please, New System wins by 3 votes (and 1 extra vote)

-

The information that was here before has been changed, so if you still want to vote or want to change your vote, then read on... (clears throat) Now, Agent Johnson brought up a new article quality rating system, where we had newly-designer templates and a form that we would have to fill in while rating an article. It had ten fields. Now that might seem kind of long, either because you're lazy or you just don't seem that it is necessary. Ninjinian (that's me) agreed with other users that it was quite a lot to go through, so I have decided to change the system to a simplified version.

Now, here is the changed version of the new quality system:

While reviewing/rating or re-reviewing/rating an article, you decide on five fields, not ten fields. There will be Content (including Structure), Creativity and Overall. You write the review within the article summary box, and should be in small sentences, atleast 1-3. At the same time, give a score for each category (Content, Creativity and Overall), e.g. Content, 5/10.

We have five different quality template, which are:


 * Stub - replaces Stub and Very Low-Quality Article.
 * Low - replaces Low-Quality Article and High Low-Quality Article.
 * Average - replaces Medium-Quality Article of all forms.
 * High - replaces Low High-Quality Article and High-Quality Article.
 * Ultra - replaces Very High-Quality Article.

Why are there warning signs on the new templates?
 * They make the template stand out more and make them look less simple and boring.

Why should we vote for a new system?
 * This one has more accurate, and the current system has no curriculum for rating.

If you want to ask any more questions then I will try to. Now anyone can review, as long as it is done properly. Now if you have voted to stick with the new system, and now you are reading this and want to changed your vote, you may.

--  ¤   (  User page! ) (  The Cookie Master wishes you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! ) 22:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The (un)funny thing is that all the liberal users vote for reform while the more conservative ones vote for the present one.-- Agent Johnson |  You...  22:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Just like RL, isn't it? >:P -- † TurtleShroom™! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! †     :)  :)  THAT WAS DELICIOUS.     †          †        Never burn money, and especially don't nuke it.    ――–    ―――――      22:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)  

I'm liberal -- THE SHEEP!  |FIGHTTHEPOWER!   ( Stuff I did and stuff ) 22:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

=Vote= Format of voting: Reason here Siggy here

Vote Table

 * First system to get 8 votes wins. When you vote for your chosen system, add a tick into the appropriate box.

Quality

 * Cast your vote under either Present System, New System or Old System - only edit the one you vote for.

Present System (5)

 * Stub?
 * VLQA/Stub?
 * LQA
 * LQA1
 * LQA2
 * LQA3
 * MQA
 * MQA1
 * MQA2
 * MQA3
 * HQA
 * HQA1
 * HQA2
 * HQA3
 * VHQA

---


 * New system is too complicated. BTW, I have been om this wiki 2 years, and seen about 4 "quality wars". Considering how much of the recent changes I scroll through, that means quite a bit. We don't need "ratings" and "reviewers". If someone sees an article that hasn't yet got a tag, they should simply be able to use their own good judgement. -- THE SHEEP!  |FIGHTTHEPOWER!  [[File:Christmas sheep.png]] ( Stuff I did and stuff ) 21:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The new system is filled with red tape (Scoring forms? Really?) and doesn't allow enough wiggle room. Not to mention it'll require uprooting established infrastructure, and since transcluded templates only update when a page is purged, the changes won't be visible for a long time. Just standardize the current one and we'll be fine.  Yours Truly,   Explorer 767 ( Phagocytosis. Also known as OM NOM NOM!  )   View this template   22:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Seriously? Quality wars? That rarely ever happens, no need to change the system just due to a few trolls. Christmas Blessings For Who It May Concern...from Ponyo Fan. 16:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * ...-and my meeting was bad? While I have had a spat with one man or two over the quality of an article, and while we will revert it back and forth for a while, we have always- I mean this literally -always met in the middle. There is no need to resolve what is well. We are fairly diplomatic. If I say HQA and you say LQA, we meet in the middle: MQA! Here's an example that is very recent: I remember Walt Jazzy. I said MQA 3, they said LQA 2. We met in the middle with MQA 1, when I checked, though that may have changed. It was about three or four reverts between me and others, before someone just made a meet in the middle. We always meet in the middle. Always! It's one of the few peaceful things that we can all do! -- † 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;"> ―――――      22:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I was the one who made these templates (it started with a template I stole from Uncyclopedia and put into the Mabel article) and I choose to stick with it. Besides, it's more simple. --<font face="" color="orange">Icmer In <font face="" color="yellow">Nyc Well, there used to be a smiley here but that's gone...(Just Tell Me!) 18:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

New System (9)

 * Stub
 * Low
 * Average
 * High
 * Ultra


 * I vote for the new system. First of all, there are less templates used here for the current system - some might think that is bad because "more templates means more specific classification, leading to better info for editors and readers" - imagine New Club Penguin, it is currently a standard medium-quality article. If I added, let's say, two more small sections with a 15-line paragraph under each one, and then an admin changed the quality to a just-below HQA article, it doesn't make much of a difference. It is only a bit of a difference, so there's no need to have two sub-templates for each of the three templates, that actually makes it more complicated. If it's an average-quality article based on the curriculum that AJ has set up above, then give it the average-quality article template. If it is expanded much, change it to the high-quality template. Then if it's an article such as United States of Antarctica, UnitedTerra then give it an ultra-quality article. If you put your mind to it you'll realise that this is much easier. Plus, the design looks better than the current system one. New System rulezzz! -- [[Image:Ninj Xmas Sig.PNG]] ¤   (  User page! ) (  The Cookie Master wishes you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! ) 22:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree with Ninjinian. These templates and new regulations will be much quicker and more comprhendable to a user.-- Sanchonachos OBAMA 2012  LIBERALS! LIBERALS!  00:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree also.--XTUX is on teh job! 05:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Pictures = sold (also, I am that IP that keeps doing those edits) --Metalmanager 22:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm centre-right, more recently leaning towards the right. I like this new system better, absolutely nothing political about it. What does politics have to do with this? ONCE AGAIN, PEOPLE ARE PUTTING TO MUCH TIME AND EFFORT INTO THE POLITICS OF THE WIKI AND FORGETTING THE MAIN PURPOSE: MAKING FICTIONAL ARTICLES ABOUT CLUB PENGUIN. THIS IS NOT A BLOODY SUMMIT OF NATIONS; IT'S A BUNCH OF ARTICLES ABOUT CLUB PENGUIN. This is one of the reasons why I liberated myself of administartive duties. It distracts the individual from writing articles and set their mind on petty irrelevant debates such as this. --<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. 23:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The new system is much more simple and I like it. andrew's sockpuppet 22:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Very simple indeed. I also hate how stubs and LQAs are seperated. Alex001 08:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Simple and easy. IAMRED  Speak to me! NOW! 13:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * New system has cool templates. Plus, it can't be much worse, can it? --Austin8310 13:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Old System (0)
This was before we phased out the old system and bought in a new one.
 * Stub
 * LQA
 * MQA
 * HQA

None (1)
No quality templates at all; people decide for themselves. Stub is kept.


 * --Refractor (on N800)