User blog:HF/Regarding Articles

The CPFW has about 5,500 articles. There are 150 low quality articles, 6 adequate articles, 385 glorious articles(HQA), and 13 superlative articles.

However, we also have 116 stubs, which are technically low quality articles. There are also 660 articles under construction.

Now, I have my doubts that 385 articles are high quality, and I have doubts that we only have 6 MQAs. We also have mass amounts of construction articles and stubs.

This leaves 4209 articles without a rating.

This is a problem.

We should have a rating system, and work on improving the article's ratings, instead of making new ones.

Comments
YES we should have a rating system

05:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's my thought:

Only administrators can decide the quality of articles. However, an admin cannot rate his/her own article.

Hello, my name is Star Kirby12. Chat first, ask questions later. Then let's do something! &bull;  Tobot?&bull; Some challenges?&bull; A few drafts and stuff? &bull;  08:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Only one problem with that, how do expect a few people to rate over 4000 articles quickly? Before we even consider delegating the power of rating we should actually come up with a clearly defined, article quality system. Which has been sitting on the to-do list for months! -- Click This For Riches! Less Nerf, More Talk! 08:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't think it has to be quick. Hello, my name is Star Kirby12. Chat first, ask questions later. Then let's do something! &bull;  Tobot?&bull; Some challenges?&bull; A few drafts and stuff? &bull; [[File:|50px]] 09:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

we dunt hav 2 tonk the tonk jus sit bak and relax lol jus chill out ma sooooouuuuulllll brotherzzzzzz

That really seems like a good idea. ^^ Are we going to use the old rating system that Ninjinian made two years ago or a new one? User:Iceflower485

Well, we can use the good old fashioned system that i came to know and love which was around when I first joined....

Alright, I find NOTHING wrong with our current rating system. The rating templates are OK, though they could use more of a CP style. Plus Admins shouldn't be the only ones to rate pages, that's just flat out stupid. I say all we need to do is to replace the current rating template images with CP-styled images. We also don't need sub-categories, Swiss. Plus we don't need to make everything look like the past, the wiki's entering a new age of glory so let's move on with it.

-- 16:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

my frends where need a map 2 narus temple and maybe by the looks of thing maybe dough cough on the way 2 dins temple

Actually our wiki isnt doing any better than it had since the beginning of Fall 2011. And we HAD subcategories. I actually miss the old treasured QA templates with their easy to understand color system...they bring back such memories.

--  22:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The Old System
Ah, HERE was what I meant to say....the Old Wiki's templates were simple and memorable. The colors matched and all the boxes had the same format. and, if we really wanted to, we could put an icon or something. Like Explorer for the HQA...and Austin for the MQA...and Corai for the LQA or something, since he's red....

Anyways, here is what the OLD system looks like. I found it efficient. Please note that i stripped this off the old wiki. Some of this stuff i DID tweak, some i DIDN'T. Please be sure that we will change the content if it is felt that it is not suitable or is lacking.

(The stub stayed when we left...)

LQA, normal

LQA 1

LQA 2

LQA 3

LQA "S"

THE HIGHEST!

See? It's organized and it's specific.

--  03:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh wait...TS and Explorer were the ones who tweaked the HQA and LQA and MQA's.....I must not be paying attention to these things. :/

Swiss, this is almost what I want. Though it needs to be less complicated. There should be icons on the templates, but not of characters. We want this to be simple, Swiss. Not laid out like a multi-millionaire company that practical keeps the world economy running. Plus that's way too many templates. We should just update the current rating templates, that will work just fine.

-- 03:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Another Solution by Agent Johnson
I personally think that the current templates are fine. They're simple as there are only 4 of them and me and Ninji came up with a conversion chart for them when we introduced them (from what I remember, TS opposed them and Explorer compromised with us so that the Wiki didn't argue over a few templates). We were going to write a guide but we never came round to it. I can write it fully, although here's a basic summary.

I think a good way to decide quality would be based upon bytes. So for instance, an article less then 3,000 bytes would be Low, an article less then 6,000 would be Average, one below 9,000 would be High and one below 12,000 would be Ultra. I'm don't think this system is best, since Ultra articles got to stand out.-- Agent Johnson |  For once Channel 5 (UK) is actually doing alright. They broadcast football matches you want to watch, The Gadget Show is bloody good and for christ sakes they have Big Brother! But scrap Channel 5 News, no one watches it, scrap Fifth Gear, everyone watches Top Gear and scrap Milkshake, because toddlers watch Cebeebies.  TL;DR : Channel 5 is dumb since still don't know people don't watch them but they're getting smarter cause now we are watching them.  03:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Low = Stub, LQA 1, LQA 2 (previously articles in these categories would had gotten deleted, so we decided to use Low as the benchmark to expand from)
 * Average = LQA 3, MQA 1, MQA 2 (articles which wouldn't be deleted and that meet our expectations... so average)
 * High = MQA 3, HQA 3, HQA 2 (articles which exceed the average level)
 * Ultra = HQA 1 (simply for the best of the best)

I agree with AJ. Hello, my name is Star Kirby12. Chat first, ask questions later. Then let's do something! &bull;  Tobot?&bull; Some challenges?&bull; A few drafts and stuff? &bull;  04:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Yeah. I agree with AJ on this too. It is simpler and it's in a better organized system. I must have forgotten that fight with TS and Explorer....either that or I just wasn't there...

--  04:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

This also means that The Last Stand is Ultra! Hello, my name is Star Kirby12. Chat first, ask questions later. Then let's do something! &bull;  Tobot?&bull; Some challenges?&bull; A few drafts and stuff? &bull;  04:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not up to me to decide the points system. Like HF I'm mostly behind the scenes, so it's up to you how the bytes system should be designed.--AJ (sig too long, can't be bothered to post)

Under Construction articles can be considered a quality. Unfinished articles which aren't meant to be deleted, so that they can clog up the Wiki. If they hadn't been edited in a long time, move them to the Omnibus and let someone adopt it. Put a few ads on the main page, perhaps someone will adopt it, perhaps someone won't. If it hasn't been adopted for several months then delete it and allow someone restore-adopt if they wish to; they contact an Admin, request the article to be restored, review it, then decide whether to adopt it. --AJ

Oh and wasn't the Stub template meant to be deleted?--AJ


 * Bytes should not determine whether or not an article is a HQA or a LQA. Quality determines it. If its byte size, The maddest most hektik sick story bro would be an UQA. Happyface414''' (talk 05:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Hello, my name is Star Kirby12. Chat first, ask questions later. Then let's do something! &bull;  Tobot?&bull; Some challenges?&bull; A few drafts and stuff? &bull;  07:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

This is silly!
Why do we need to come up with new systems? We just need to define article quality rankings clearly and we have a working system within a few days, hours if we work at it. If you ask me, I think article should be rated by:
 * Their size, in words.
 * An infobox and other such templates.
 * How well-written they are.
 * Categorisation.-- Click This For Riches! Less Nerf, More Talk! 15:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * High five! --Signature for Feey1.JPG 15:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Why change what works?  My subjects, one and all,  Your king has returned!  16:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Because it doesn't work. Our system right now is nothing. There are no standards for articles, currently. Happyface414''' (talk 18:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)