v50 Steam/Premium information for editors
- v50 information can now be added to pages in the main namespace. v0.47 information can still be found in the DF2014 namespace. See here for more details on the new versioning policy.
- Use this page to report any issues related to the migration.
This notice may be cached—the current version can be found here.
Difference between revisions of "User talk:Rriegs"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Created page with "Why did you go through and change all those quality ratings? ~~~~") |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Why did you go through and change all those quality ratings? | Why did you go through and change all those quality ratings? | ||
[[User:Untrustedlife|Untrustedlife]] ([[User talk:Untrustedlife|talk]]) 00:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC) | [[User:Untrustedlife|Untrustedlife]] ([[User talk:Untrustedlife|talk]]) 00:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC) | ||
| + | :My apologies if the community feels it is important to discuss any quality ratings changes before they are made, but there are thousands of pages and I wanted to start the process of recognizing quality where it exists. At first, I focused on pages with Unknown quality and made an effort to rate them equivalently to pages with similar content and appearance. I then turned my eye to Tattered and Fine quality articles, and found that many of them were rated lower than they seemed to deserve. | ||
| + | :In general, my changes have adhered to the following pattern: | ||
| + | :*I added Tattered ratings to unrated creature pages that appeared to be automatically generated with no human edits. | ||
| + | :*I upgraded ratings for creature pages with added content and/or pictures. It only takes a few tidbits of useful in-game information to elevate such articles to Exceptional. | ||
| + | :*I downgraded some Masterwork articles to Exceptional that either [[Dwarf Fortress Wiki:Quality#Masterwork|didn't "cover an important 'must-read' topic" or weren't "comprehensive on the subject"]]. | ||
| + | :*On the other hand, I upgraded to Masterwork a few pages such as [[Dwarf]] and [[Cave-in]] that go into much greater depth than would be expected of a typical article. | ||
| + | :*I also upgraded a number of pages (e.g. [[Floor]]) from Fine to Superior or Exceptional that appeared to [[Dwarf Fortress Wiki:Quality#Superior|meet or exceed the requirements]]. | ||
| + | :I have since observed that most automatically generated creature pages with no human edits are rated Fine, and given that they already contain a good deal of useful information, designating them Tattered (due to being a stub) does seem inappropriate. I stopped decreasing their ratings after pages starting with "A" and will leave things as they are for the time being. Further, I've now noticed that some of the articles I upgraded to Masterwork bear the [[Verify]] tag and so should be excluded if we strictly adhere to the rules. | ||
| + | :I still have a lot of the alphabet to go through under [[:Category:Fine Quality Articles|Fine]], but if the community prefers, I can pause my efforts to correct any further page ratings until consensus can be reached. --[[User:Rriegs|Rriegs]] ([[User talk:Rriegs|talk]]) 19:05, 22 September 2016 (UTC) | ||
| + | ::I say: Have fun making this Wiki a better place. I do think rating articles is a useful task. [[User:MathFox|MathFox]] ([[User talk:MathFox|talk]]) 19:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 19:48, 22 September 2016
Why did you go through and change all those quality ratings? Untrustedlife (talk) 00:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- My apologies if the community feels it is important to discuss any quality ratings changes before they are made, but there are thousands of pages and I wanted to start the process of recognizing quality where it exists. At first, I focused on pages with Unknown quality and made an effort to rate them equivalently to pages with similar content and appearance. I then turned my eye to Tattered and Fine quality articles, and found that many of them were rated lower than they seemed to deserve.
- In general, my changes have adhered to the following pattern:
- I added Tattered ratings to unrated creature pages that appeared to be automatically generated with no human edits.
- I upgraded ratings for creature pages with added content and/or pictures. It only takes a few tidbits of useful in-game information to elevate such articles to Exceptional.
- I downgraded some Masterwork articles to Exceptional that either didn't "cover an important 'must-read' topic" or weren't "comprehensive on the subject".
- On the other hand, I upgraded to Masterwork a few pages such as Dwarf and Cave-in that go into much greater depth than would be expected of a typical article.
- I also upgraded a number of pages (e.g. Floor) from Fine to Superior or Exceptional that appeared to meet or exceed the requirements.
- I have since observed that most automatically generated creature pages with no human edits are rated Fine, and given that they already contain a good deal of useful information, designating them Tattered (due to being a stub) does seem inappropriate. I stopped decreasing their ratings after pages starting with "A" and will leave things as they are for the time being. Further, I've now noticed that some of the articles I upgraded to Masterwork bear the Verify tag and so should be excluded if we strictly adhere to the rules.
- I still have a lot of the alphabet to go through under Fine, but if the community prefers, I can pause my efforts to correct any further page ratings until consensus can be reached. --Rriegs (talk) 19:05, 22 September 2016 (UTC)