Revision as of 11:37, 28 September 2013 editBattyBot (talk | contribs)Bots1,933,512 editsm Added {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}, talk page general fixes & other cleanup using AWB (9501)← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 01:48, 16 January 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,416,786 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 3 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "Stub" in {{WPBS}}. Keep 1 different rating in {{WikiProject Articles for creation}}. Remove 2 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject United States}}, {{WikiProject National Register of Historic Places}}. |
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) |
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Stub|1= |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Articles for creation|class=start|ts=20130905155030|reviewer=MatthewVanitas}} |
|
{{WikiProject Articles for creation|class=start|ts=20130905155030|reviewer=MatthewVanitas}} |
|
{{WikiProject Colorado|class=stub|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject United States|CO=yes|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject National Register of Historic Places|class=stub|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject National Register of Historic Places|importance=low}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
Line 9: |
Line 9: |
|
I changed the articles rating to that of a Stub. It was rated a start. I ask, why? Honestly, it restates a NRHP nom form. It barely crosses the threashold of being a dictionary definition of the place. In fact, you could probably, go to that place, strike up a conversation with a local person and they would know as much if not more than what is in the current article. IMO, thats a stub. I checked oin the Wiki rankings of articles, turnes out, ] pretty much spells it out. WHY do I care. Using this as a metric, lets just go along and assume its a Start. Add a pic. Well now we have a pic, of the building, WOW! I am now bolt upright, jaw agape, THIS MUST BE A CLASS A or FA NOW. How about another ref? WOO HOO! Its a FA now. 3 refs...EGAD, the '''HAND OF GOD''' must be a new ranking. The entire paradigm of human knowledge has now been transformed as we now know it. BECAUSE, we have a pic, 3 sentences, and 2+ refs...UH...NO] (]) 17:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
I changed the articles rating to that of a Stub. It was rated a start. I ask, why? Honestly, it restates a NRHP nom form. It barely crosses the threashold of being a dictionary definition of the place. In fact, you could probably, go to that place, strike up a conversation with a local person and they would know as much if not more than what is in the current article. IMO, thats a stub. I checked oin the Wiki rankings of articles, turnes out, ] pretty much spells it out. WHY do I care. Using this as a metric, lets just go along and assume its a Start. Add a pic. Well now we have a pic, of the building, WOW! I am now bolt upright, jaw agape, THIS MUST BE A CLASS A or FA NOW. How about another ref? WOO HOO! Its a FA now. 3 refs...EGAD, the '''HAND OF GOD''' must be a new ranking. The entire paradigm of human knowledge has now been transformed as we now know it. BECAUSE, we have a pic, 3 sentences, and 2+ refs...UH...NO] (]) 17:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I returned the AFC rating to Start. I believe it is not proper to change that from the AFC member's evaluation. Whatever, otherwise. --]]] 17:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
:I returned the AFC rating to Start. I believe it is not proper to change that from the AFC member's evaluation. Whatever, otherwise. --]]] 17:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
::There is no rule or law stating that. Its a stub. Its barely 4 sentences......really?] (]) 17:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
::There is no rule or law stating that. Its a stub. Its barely 4 sentences......really?] (]) 17:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::It's a rating by a named AFC reviewer. You should not change their rating. I don't care what rating for Wikiproject NRHP, am leaving that different. --]]] 19:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
:::It's a rating by a named AFC reviewer. You should not change their rating. I don't care what rating for Wikiproject NRHP, am leaving that different. --]]] 19:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
::::AFC reviewers aren't infallible. Just because one of them decided that three sentences, one of which is a direct quote, was somehow start-class despite assessment policy to the contrary doesn't mean that it has to stay that way forever. ] <sup>]•]</sup> 21:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
::::AFC reviewers aren't infallible. Just because one of them decided that three sentences, one of which is a direct quote, was somehow start-class despite assessment policy to the contrary doesn't mean that it has to stay that way forever. ] <sup>]•]</sup> 21:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
:'''Warning at all''': Please for the love of DIETY do not edit war over the evaluation that a member of the AfC project gave to a page. If you disagree with the rating given on behalf of your project, feel free to change it, but each project has it's own rubric over what constitutes the various classes. {{Reply to|Coal town guy}} Why did you not bring the issue to the reviewer who promoted the submission out of AfC space rather than have (what appears to be) a conniption fit/] here on the talk page. ] (]) 22:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
:'''Warning at all''': Please for the love of DIETY do not edit war over the evaluation that a member of the AfC project gave to a page. If you disagree with the rating given on behalf of your project, feel free to change it, but each project has it's own rubric over what constitutes the various classes. {{Reply to|Coal town guy}} Why did you not bring the issue to the reviewer who promoted the submission out of AfC space rather than have (what appears to be) a conniption fit/] here on the talk page. ] (]) 22:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC) |
I changed the articles rating to that of a Stub. It was rated a start. I ask, why? Honestly, it restates a NRHP nom form. It barely crosses the threashold of being a dictionary definition of the place. In fact, you could probably, go to that place, strike up a conversation with a local person and they would know as much if not more than what is in the current article. IMO, thats a stub. I checked oin the Wiki rankings of articles, turnes out, WP:ASSESS pretty much spells it out. WHY do I care. Using this as a metric, lets just go along and assume its a Start. Add a pic. Well now we have a pic, of the building, WOW! I am now bolt upright, jaw agape, THIS MUST BE A CLASS A or FA NOW. How about another ref? WOO HOO! Its a FA now. 3 refs...EGAD, the HAND OF GOD must be a new ranking. The entire paradigm of human knowledge has now been transformed as we now know it. BECAUSE, we have a pic, 3 sentences, and 2+ refs...UH...NOCoal town guy (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)