Toggle menu
Toggle preferences menu
Toggle personal menu
Not logged in
Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits.

Editing Battlestar Wiki talk:Quality Articles

Discussion page of Battlestar Wiki:Quality Articles
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision Your text
Line 1: Line 1:
Woah woah woah. Locking an article down from edits totally defeats the wiki spirit. I don't object to having specific revisions marked as "1.0", "1.1", "2.0", etc. which we can link to with oldid links, but blocking edits entirely is a very poor idea. --[[User:April Arcus|April Arcus]] 00:01, 13 October 2005 (EDT)
Woah woah woah. Locking an article down from edits totally defeats the wiki spirit. I don't object to having specific revisions marked as "1.0", "1.1", "2.0", etc. which we can link to with oldid links, but blocking edits entirely is a very poor idea. --[[User:April Arcus|April Arcus]] 00:01, 13 October 2005 (EDT)


:I concur with April here. This is a slippery slope that defeats the collective purpose of the Wiki. I like the idea of tagging popular or quality pages, but the idea of numbering versions will be a nightmare of micromanagement. I didn't get how we define what is quality, but I will read it again. I would think such a thing would be by things like (1) hits on the article, (2) number of edits, and (3) number of hard sources. If that is the case, then, many current articles fit this, defeating the reason for the tag. I'll have to think a bit more on how this could work. [[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 12:49, 13 October 2005 (EDT)
:I concur with Peter here. This is a slippery slope that defeats the collective purpose of the Wiki. I like the idea of tagging popular or quality pages, but the idea of numbering versions will be a nightmare of micromanagement. I didn't get how we define what is quality, but I will read it again. I would think such a thing would be by things like (1) hits on the article, (2) number of edits, and (3) number of hard sources. If that is the case, then, many current articles fit this, defeating the reason for the tag. I'll have to think a bit more on how this could work. [[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 12:49, 13 October 2005 (EDT)


::I agree. To clarify my idea on numbered versions, although it could be useful to know what the most recent version is which has passed a certain battery of quality tests, the fact is that newer material will almost invariably be better than older as long as projects such as the Citation Jihad et al. maintain their vigilance; and that vandalism will be reverted practically instantly. Anything beyond a wikipedia-style Featured Articles process strikes me as obtuse and impractical. --[[User:April Arcus|April Arcus]] 17:06, 13 October 2005 (EDT)
::I agree. To clarify my idea on numbered versions, although it could be useful to know what the most recent version is which has passed a certain battery of quality tests, the fact is that newer material will almost invariably be better than older as long as projects such as the Citation Jihad et al. maintain their vigilance; and that vandalism will be reverted practically instantly. Anything beyond a wikipedia-style Featured Articles process strikes me as obtuse and impractical. --[[User:April Arcus|April Arcus]] 17:06, 13 October 2005 (EDT)
Line 13: Line 13:
::I'm not sure you've replied to my actual comment. All I'm saying is that "Quality article" is a worse name for this sort of thing than "Featured article". --[[User:April Arcus|April Arcus]] 19:21, 17 March 2006 (CST)
::I'm not sure you've replied to my actual comment. All I'm saying is that "Quality article" is a worse name for this sort of thing than "Featured article". --[[User:April Arcus|April Arcus]] 19:21, 17 March 2006 (CST)


::: I concur, April. Though, because of common usage, I'd not be so hasty to say that "quality" cannot be an adjective. In any case, I like the fact that "Featured Articles" is more exact and equally concise. It also does not, really, imply any level of high quality. If a Quality Article is vandalized it will not be of high quality (for all of, maybe, five seconds), thus ruining the name. If a Featured Article is vandalized, it will still be featured (and fixed quickly as well, I hope). --[[User:Day|Day]] 21:37, 18 March 2006 (CST)
::: I concur, Peter. Though, because of common usage, I'd not be so hasty to say that "quality" cannot be an adjective. In any case, I like the fact that "Featured Articles" is more exact and equally concise. It also does not, really, imply any level of high quality. If a Quality Article is vandalized it will not be of high quality (for all of, maybe, five seconds), thus ruining the name. If a Featured Article is vandalized, it will still be featured (and fixed quickly as well, I hope). --[[User:Day|Day]] 21:37, 18 March 2006 (CST)


::: I concur, April. If we could change it before it appears too many more places, that'd be great. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] 22:09, 25 April 2006 (CDT)
::: I concur, Peter. If we could change it before it appears too many more places, that'd be great. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] 22:09, 25 April 2006 (CDT)


==Quality vs. Featured==
==Quality vs. Featured==

To edit this page, please enter the words that appear below in the box (more info):

Refresh
Cancel Editing help (opens in new window)

  [] · [[]] · [[|]] · {{}} · · “” ‘’ «» ‹› „“ ‚‘ · ~ | °   · ± × ÷ ² ³ ½ · §
     [[Category:]] · [[:File:]] · [[Special:MyLanguage/]] · <code></code> · <nowiki></nowiki> <code><nowiki></nowiki></code> · <syntaxhighlight></syntaxhighlight> · <includeonly></includeonly> · <noinclude></noinclude> · #REDIRECT[[]] · <translate></translate> · <languages/> · {{#translation:}} · <tvar|></> · {{DEFAULTSORT:}} · <categorytree></categorytree> · <div style="clear:both;"></div> <s></s>


Your changes will be visible immediately.
  • For testing, please use the sandbox instead.
  • On talk pages, please sign your comment by typing four tildes (~~~~).

Templates used on this page: