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In the case of prior versions, requiring our articles to be less out-of-date than the game itself is rather ridiculous.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 251: | Line 249: | ||
::: Agreed, I never pay attention to them either. (btw this is really off-topic but that's an awesome rainbow signature) [[User:August|August]] 23:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC) | ::: Agreed, I never pay attention to them either. (btw this is really off-topic but that's an awesome rainbow signature) [[User:August|August]] 23:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC) | ||
− | |||
− | |||
== Proposal: Add a fifth quality ranking == | == Proposal: Add a fifth quality ranking == | ||
As pointed out in [[#Template/method|this topic]], there is a fairly large jump between "fine" and "exceptional" in-game, as well as in the category descriptions. [[#Quality Scale Reword?|This topic]] also points out the large gap between the two. The current descriptions make it hard to classify articles that fall between "fine" and "exceptional", leading to inconsistencies between some articles on similar topics (e.g [[DF2012:Armadillo]] and [[DF2012:Conger eel]] are "fine", [[DF2012:Badger]] is "exceptional", and [[DF2012:Coyote]] and [[DF2012:Cow]] are similar in content but have different ratings). I propose a new rating (*Superior* seems to fit according to [[DF2012:Quality]]). I know it would probably require a lot of reorganization for some articles, but I think it would provide a more accurate description of article quality. --{{User:Lethosor/sig}} 01:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC) | As pointed out in [[#Template/method|this topic]], there is a fairly large jump between "fine" and "exceptional" in-game, as well as in the category descriptions. [[#Quality Scale Reword?|This topic]] also points out the large gap between the two. The current descriptions make it hard to classify articles that fall between "fine" and "exceptional", leading to inconsistencies between some articles on similar topics (e.g [[DF2012:Armadillo]] and [[DF2012:Conger eel]] are "fine", [[DF2012:Badger]] is "exceptional", and [[DF2012:Coyote]] and [[DF2012:Cow]] are similar in content but have different ratings). I propose a new rating (*Superior* seems to fit according to [[DF2012:Quality]]). I know it would probably require a lot of reorganization for some articles, but I think it would provide a more accurate description of article quality. --{{User:Lethosor/sig}} 01:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC) | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− |