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:Resident Mario"

From Dwarf Fortress Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(re: ratings)
 
 
(3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 50: Line 50:
  
 
This covers the unreviewed with prose style. --[[User:Dree12|Dree12]] ([[User Talk:Dree12|talk]]) 03:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 
This covers the unreviewed with prose style. --[[User:Dree12|Dree12]] ([[User Talk:Dree12|talk]]) 03:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 +
:You certainly thought this through! I don't think I could ever hold myself to something so meticulous. [[User:Resident Mario|Resident Mario]] 03:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 +
 +
== Re: Relationship ==
 +
What's wrong with the {{tl|av}}? I see no problem at the moment. --[[User:Dree12|Dree12]] ([[User Talk:Dree12|talk]]) 22:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 +
 +
== Rating script ==
 +
 +
I've been working on a replacement rating script (which is still under development, but I'm looking for some feedback to make it more wiki-ready). I thought you might be interested in testing it, since you've been rating a few articles recently. You can enable it if you're interested by importing [[User:Lethosor/rater.js]] (see [[User:Lethosor/rater.js/install|this page]] for instructions). I'm open to suggestions, so let me know what you think! --[[User:Lethosor|<span style="color:#074">Lethosor</span>]] ([[User talk:Lethosor|<span style="color:#092">talk</span>]]) 23:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 +
 +
Also, thanks for expanding a lot of articles recently, especially the beekeeping and thoughts pages. Nice work! --[[User:Lethosor|<span style="color:#074">Lethosor</span>]] ([[User talk:Lethosor|<span style="color:#092">talk</span>]]) 23:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 +
:Nice utility, I like how it snaps the box after you finish the edit instead of forcing you to reload the page (Ajax?). IMO you should make a bare-bones version that doesn't give the automated suggestions - I and I think most other people spitball the article rating anyway. [[User:Resident Mario|Resident Mario]] ([[User talk:Resident Mario|talk]]) 02:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 02:57, 12 July 2013

Re: "Few contributors"[edit]

I also personally disagree with the multiple editors clause, but I think it's there for a reason — namely, to prevent unreviewed articles which might have regional terminology, a overly first-personal writing style, etc. I would personally like it better if a single list was used for everything, as such:

  • Complete and comprehensive (Six points)
    • Three points for having enough content that the average player would be able to reproduce the page's instructions or do what was described
    • Three points for not leaving out any important points
  • Wiki style (Four points)
    • Required templates (max two points)
      • {{av}} template included (0.5 points)
      • All key-presses encoded with {{k}} (0.5 points)
      • All temperatures (reasonably) encoded with {{ct}} (0.5 points)
      • 0.5 points if all of the following:
        • For creatures, stones, metals, etc., a {{gamedata}} template
        • For bugged pages, a {{buggy}} template
        • Appropriate {{minorspoilers}}, etc., templates
    • Naming (max one point)
      • All headings (incl. main) follow Rule N (0.5 points)
      • All terms follow Rule G (0.5 points)
    • Rules (max one point)
  • Prose style (Three points)
    • One point for no spelling errors or mistakes (allow for some regional variation within Rule G)
    • One point for a bit of grammar errors or mistakes (allow for some regional variation, allow some humour)
    • One point for appropriate punctuation (no doubles, not comma-heavy, etc.)
  • Accuracy (Three points)
    • Two points for no incorrect information, one point for a bit of incorrect information
    • One point for no unverified or suspect information, 0.5 points for a bit of unverified or suspect information
  • Aesthetics (Three points)
    • A point given if the page is decent
    • Another point given if the page is amazing
    • Last point given if the page has at least one related picture or image
  • Significance (Two points)
    • One point for the page having 5+ links from other content pages
    • Another point for the page having recognition on another Dwarf Fortress related forum, blog, etc. (i.e., not just made up)
  • Links (Two points)
    • A point given for a complete lack of red links
    • Another point given for an appropriate number of links, especially to important related topics
  • Categorization (One point)
    • No points if the page has no content-related categories
    • Otherwise:
      • 0.5 points given if the page has no inappropriate categories
      • 0.5 points given if the page has most or all appropriate categories

And the rating scale simply based on that:

  • Tattered: p < 5
  • Fine: 5 ≤ p < 17
  • Exceptional: 17 ≤ p < 23
  • Masterwork: 23 ≤ p

This covers the unreviewed with prose style. --Dree12 (talk) 03:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You certainly thought this through! I don't think I could ever hold myself to something so meticulous. Resident Mario 03:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: Relationship[edit]

What's wrong with the {{av}}? I see no problem at the moment. --Dree12 (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Rating script[edit]

I've been working on a replacement rating script (which is still under development, but I'm looking for some feedback to make it more wiki-ready). I thought you might be interested in testing it, since you've been rating a few articles recently. You can enable it if you're interested by importing User:Lethosor/rater.js (see this page for instructions). I'm open to suggestions, so let me know what you think! --Lethosor (talk) 23:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, thanks for expanding a lot of articles recently, especially the beekeeping and thoughts pages. Nice work! --Lethosor (talk) 23:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Nice utility, I like how it snaps the box after you finish the edit instead of forcing you to reload the page (Ajax?). IMO you should make a bare-bones version that doesn't give the automated suggestions - I and I think most other people spitball the article rating anyway. Resident Mario (talk) 02:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)