Forum:Article ratings

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Article ratings
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 28 December 2011 by Cook Me Plox.

I want to propose that we create some additional article ratings for some of the WikiGuilds [such as quality and importance ratings, for example good articles and articles of top importance (these examples are not part of the proposal right now)]. Here's an example of what this might look like: assessment page; talk page. This is in order to help users identify which articles need the most attention related to a certain topic, and to encourage more article improvement. Would appreciate any input on this. Smithing (talk | contribs) 01:17, November 11, 2011 (UTC)


Support - I've long since noticed those project templates on Wikipedia, and agree that they could be useful here, but are also a LOT of work, adding them to all the pages to try and determine priority for editing (when most editors will edit to their interests, not to what needs the help the most. For example, I don't care the least about quick guides, and while I'll often help out with regular quest guides, I wouldn't touch a quick guide even if they needed the editing help the most). Does it really need a yew grove proposal, however, to add a template to the top of talk pages? I would assume it'd be up to the project ("WikiGuild") to decide if they'd do so or not. I'd assume this would also use categories with such a template? Hofmic Talk 22:23, November 11, 2011 (UTC)

Well, this proposal is mainly concerned with creating additional article ratings for WikiGuilds. I'm not too concerned as to whether or not a template is added to talk pages, although I think it would be a very good idea, since it could help users understand where the article could be improved (through rating criteria) by just going to the talk page. And yes, it would be my guess that this template would use categories. Smithing (talk | contribs) 05:58, November 12, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Could portals somehow tie into this? Each portal could have it's own "wikiproject" which deals with all the articles that fall under that portal's topic. Then the portal project pages could be the basis of the "ratings/reviews/assessments". I'm not totally sure, as to be honest, I do not fully understand the proposal; just thought I'd bring that idea up. Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 01:55, November 12, 2011 (UTC)

Idea and Comment- I would say just add it to all pages like this at the bottom of the page. But otherwise it is a good idea.
Hair 02:27, November 12, 2011 (UTC)

ArticleFeeback was part of the Wikimedia Foundation 2010 overhaul with Vector (and many other projects) and is incompatible with Wikia. Me and Cook have already talked to Wikia and failed on this several months ago, just with about four or five other extensions that aren't Wikia-friendly which could have helped us. Ryan PM 05:42, November 12, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - There was StarRating in Monaco, but it was never used properly. That rating system was removed as it was a failed attempt that used hearts rather than stars. It also didn't get much attention nor did it help the article at all (SEO probably didn't care either). Best thing any of us can do is make an extension that can work with Oasis and Monobook with the most current repository dump from SVN. Although I don't know if Wikia still does it, they used to take extensions meant for specific wikis (like Cat's RuneScape Highscores extension). Maybe we can change that. Lastly, I would rather have an extension that is reminiscent of ArticleFeedback rather than another to-be dead WikiGuild. Just some food for thought. Ryan PM 05:42, November 12, 2011 (UTC)

Bum This is an interesting idea, but I'm worried about the practical execution. It's hard to see how this extension could fit onto the page in a space that can be frequently seen. As we have learned from Monaco, that star rating thing at the bottom of the page won't work very well. --LiquidTalk 17:24, November 17, 2011 (UTC)

Was the problem with Monaco Star ratings that no one rated the articles, or that we couldn't make any practical use of such a system. That star system was useless; the only way you could use it was just to look at the article and see how many stars it has. No rankings, no categorisation, no tasks to improve it, no use involvement, etc. Maybe with these ratings, we could make better use of it. Chicken7 >talk 11:19, November 21, 2011 (UTC)

Support. Many wikis have used a rating system for articles, and it would be great if we did to. I'd love to see this independant of wikiguilds, with a set standard for articles of different types that can be rated along those lines. Perhaps a "complete" rating for articles that are complete according to the MoS, and from there "good" articles and "featured" articles? Ratings could be voted on, or appointed by a group of users like the ET to reduce bureaucracy. Or even a combination of both :o ajr 18:34, November 18, 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if it should be independent of them. The thing is, some people may like one aspect of rs, but not others, and will not be interested in helping out with some topics. For example, I have very little interest in helping out with music articles and almost all skill articles. I think it would be more beneficial if we did them by guilds instead. I also don't know about a complete rating as it may imply the article is perfect when that clearly is never going to be the case. Smithing (talk | contribs) 05:22, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

Question - I don't really understand how this system works. Could someone explain it to me? Matt (t) 08:11, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

It seems we're actually discussing 2 different systems. One where readers can simply vote using a ranking from 1 to 5; a bit like the old Monaco system, but more useful. And another system where we have discussions about what "ranking" an article should receive, a bit like the thing you see on any Wikipedia article's talk page stating its "class". Maybe we should decide which system we want. Chicken7 >talk 11:53, November 27, 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Chicken. One idea was proposed, it seems that the other one was supported. The article feedback may not even be possible without an extension. ʞooɔ 23:02, December 10, 2011 (UTC)

Idea - If this article rating system does come into play; I think we should have a page which lists pages with low rating, that way we could easily find which ones need to be edited. --Soilder198 06:12, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Definitely! Very important idea if we were to implement this. Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 11:55, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Support - I'm sure that we could put data gathered by an article rating system similar to Wikipedia's to good use as long as there are enough article views. 222 talk 12:48, December 10, 2011 (UTC)

Notice - Most of the people commenting here are not actually commenting on the proposal. I suggest people re-read what Smithing is trying to say so we can actually establish some sort of consensus about something. Suppa chuppa Talk 03:59, December 16, 2011 (UTC)

This request for closure is complete A user has requested closure for Article ratings. Request complete. The reason given was: Discussion has died, no consensus

Matt (t) 12:51, December 24, 2011 (UTC)

Disagree it has no consensus, no one has opposed original suggestion. Smithing (talk | contribs) 12:57, December 24, 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict, bear with me, I'm on my ipod) Just because there isn't consensus to not do it, it doesn't mean there is consensus to do it. Adding on to that, a proposal like this, or the proposal of starred article ratings, would need much more comment than what has been given to be able to have consensus reached. Matt (t) 13:12, December 24, 2011 (UTC)
There is consensus to do it. From what I've read, people have really only said positive things about this, not negative things, and it has received support. I don't think you can have no consensus if really only positive things have been said about it, but negative things haven't. Smithing (talk | contribs) 13:19, December 24, 2011 (UTC)
I count two or three actual supports for your proposal. A few users sharing their input is not community consensus. It's a few users sharing their input. Matt (t) 13:26, December 24, 2011 (UTC)
I don't consider the original proposal to be a big issue or affect a lot of people in the community. I don't think that a pretty insignificant thing should require many people to voice their opinion. This isn't a policy change or anything like that. Smithing (talk | contribs) 13:34, December 24, 2011 (UTC)
Maybe if it was 2006 or 2007, but the input of 3 users out of however many users participate in yg discussions simply is not consensus, regardless of the scale of the proposal itself. I don't really know what more to say. Matt (t) 13:44, December 24, 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand how the amount of users who normally participate in discussions has to do with anything. The way I see it, if not many people care about something, maybe because it's not too important, it would be ridiculous to expect many people to comment on it. I believe the amount of comments here is sufficient. Smithing (talk | contribs) 14:00, December 24, 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't using that as a direct basis for refuting your posts, I was using it as a more comparitve point to show that the opinion of three people is wholey insignificant in the regard of viable consensual decison making in a community of our size. I'm pretty sure I don't have anything more to say here. An admin can decide if this should be closed or not. Merry Christmas, Smithing. Matt (t) 14:22, December 24, 2011 (UTC)
Should be closed as successful or not* Matt (t) 14:33, December 24, 2011 (UTC)
I have re-read over the discussion, and I feel there is consensus to do something. I also feel there is no consensus over what that something is. So, you're both right to some extent. It seems we want an article rating system, but we haven't decided which system we want. The whole discussion is all over the place. I recommend someone keen on getting this done make a new, solid proposal with clear objectives, examples and an explanation of how it will work. Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 14:47, December 24, 2011 (UTC)
This closure discussion is getting pretty long. Anyway, I do agree that the discussion is all over the place, but I just don't see how that affects what type of article rating system we should use. The second type of article rating being discussed was different from the proposal, so I just don't see it having an affect on the original one. We could try both. As for a more solid proposal, I can get that done. Smithing (talk | contribs) 15:12, December 24, 2011 (UTC)
How does the thread being all over the place affect it? Well, of there's consensus to do something, but not to what that something is, it kind of makes that consensus moot, does it not? Just as a side note, by no consensus, I didn't just mean that there was no consensus to do something. At the same time I also meant that there was no consensus to do something specific, as I didn't feel either existed. Also, I'm going to ask for this to be closed again because I feel that if there were to be a more solid proposal, that it would suit a separate thread because this thread kind of became a dead mess. Matt (t) 15:24, December 24, 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand the first part you're trying to say. The proposal wasn't intended on being specific, just to see if their would be consensus to have additional types of article ratings (not only featured and stub) for some of the WikiGuilds. It was also intended to read some thoughts on how we would go about doing this (although somehow we managed to get into the discussion of a different type of article rating altogether). If there aren't be any objections to making a more specific proposal regarding the original, then I'd be fine with creating another thread. Smithing (talk | contribs) 15:49, December 24, 2011 (UTC)
This request for closure is complete A user has requested closure for Article ratings. Request complete. The reason given was: Nothing left to be discussed, the next thread in this topic shall be proposed. Ronan Talk 21:28, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
Endorse closure, seems like there are no objections to creating another thread. Smithing (talk | contribs) 21:29, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - Consensus to implement some type of article rating system. New thread will be established to decide specifics. ʞooɔ 22:00, December 28, 2011 (UTC)