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.
Editing Dwarf Fortress Wiki talk:Quality
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Warning: You are not logged in.
Your IP address will be recorded in this page's edit history.
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 218: | Line 218: | ||
|- | |- | ||
|DF2012 | |DF2012 | ||
− | | | + | |{{PAGESINCAT:DF2012:Quality ranks older than 10 weeks|R}} |
− | | | + | |{{PAGESINCAT:DF2012:Quality ranks without proper timestamps|R}} |
− | | | + | |{{NUMBEROFARTICLES|DF2012}} |
− | | | + | |{{#expr: ({{PAGESINCAT:DF2012:Quality ranks older than 10 weeks|R}}+{{PAGESINCAT:DF2012:Quality ranks without proper timestamps|R}}) / {{NUMBEROFARTICLES|DF2012}} * 100 round 1}} |
|- | |- | ||
|v0.31 | |v0.31 | ||
− | | | + | |{{PAGESINCAT:v0.31:Quality ranks older than 10 weeks|R}} |
− | | | + | |{{PAGESINCAT:v0.31:Quality ranks without proper timestamps|R}} |
− | | | + | |{{NUMBEROFARTICLES|v0.31}} |
− | | | + | |{{#expr: ({{PAGESINCAT:v0.31:Quality ranks older than 10 weeks|R}}+{{PAGESINCAT:v0.31:Quality ranks without proper timestamps|R}}) / {{NUMBEROFARTICLES|v0.31}} * 100 round 1}} |
|- | |- | ||
|40d | |40d | ||
− | | | + | |{{PAGESINCAT:40d:Quality ranks older than 10 weeks|R}} |
− | | | + | |{{PAGESINCAT:40d:Quality ranks without proper timestamps|R}} |
− | | | + | |{{NUMBEROFARTICLES|40d}} |
− | | | + | |{{#expr: ({{PAGESINCAT:40d:Quality ranks older than 10 weeks|R}}+{{PAGESINCAT:40d:Quality ranks without proper timestamps|R}}) / {{NUMBEROFARTICLES|40d}} * 100 round 1}} |
|- | |- | ||
|23a | |23a | ||
− | | | + | |{{PAGESINCAT:23a:Quality ranks older than 10 weeks|R}} |
− | | | + | |{{PAGESINCAT:23a:Quality ranks without proper timestamps|R}} |
− | | | + | |{{NUMBEROFARTICLES|23a}} |
− | | | + | |{{#expr: ({{PAGESINCAT:23a:Quality ranks older than 10 weeks|R}}+{{PAGESINCAT:23a:Quality ranks without proper timestamps|R}}) / {{NUMBEROFARTICLES|23a}} * 100 round 1}} |
|} | |} | ||
− | |||
− | |||
In the case of prior versions, requiring our articles to be less out-of-date than the game itself is rather ridiculous. Since it is abundantly clear that these timestamps are not actively motivating improvement of the wiki, I am suggesting that the timestamps be dropped from the quality template. --[[User:Loci|Loci]] 20:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC) | In the case of prior versions, requiring our articles to be less out-of-date than the game itself is rather ridiculous. Since it is abundantly clear that these timestamps are not actively motivating improvement of the wiki, I am suggesting that the timestamps be dropped from the quality template. --[[User:Loci|Loci]] 20:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC) | ||
Line 248: | Line 246: | ||
: Makes sense to me. Timestamps should definitely be removed from the old namespaces at least (or simply not calculated as being "outdated"). However, I think timestamps could still serve some amount of purpose for the current version. Perhaps it would be best to simply extend the length of time required for quality ratings to be considered "outdated"? Or, if such a thing is possible, make it so that quality ratings are only stamped as outdated once significant changes have been made to the article since the last time it was last rated. This might make the most sense, since logically the rating shouldn't change unless the article changes first. [[User:August|August]] 22:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC) | : Makes sense to me. Timestamps should definitely be removed from the old namespaces at least (or simply not calculated as being "outdated"). However, I think timestamps could still serve some amount of purpose for the current version. Perhaps it would be best to simply extend the length of time required for quality ratings to be considered "outdated"? Or, if such a thing is possible, make it so that quality ratings are only stamped as outdated once significant changes have been made to the article since the last time it was last rated. This might make the most sense, since logically the rating shouldn't change unless the article changes first. [[User:August|August]] 22:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC) | ||
− | + | : Personally, I don't pay much attention to the "outdated" category either. I don't think an article, even one covering a 9-month old release, needs to be re-ranked every 10 weeks, particularly if the rating doesn't change. The only use I've found for the "missing timestamp" category is locating articles created by [{{fullurl:Special:ListUsers|group=bot}} bots], but this can also be checked by looking at their contributions. If it turns out that nobody uses these categories, I agree that they may as well be removed. --{{User:Lethosor/sig}} 23:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC) | |
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− |