Template talk:Grading scheme

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Grading scheme template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4: 6 months

Please see Wikipedia:Content assessment to see what this is all about.

Edit request on 15 October 2024

For whatever reason, @Redrose64 seems to be reverting my changes so I've brought them here: Proposal to update the dates on the grading sceme as at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Grading_scheme&diff=prev&oldid=1250599196 DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 20:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, why do you want to make these changes? What is wrong with the page as it stands? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To update the page. Old revisions may contain outdated content, so it's better to link to newer revisions where possible DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 10:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So they might be outdated. That's not a problem, Wikipedia is (and always has been) a work-in-progress. The idea is to show examples of articles that were correctly graded at a particular moment, not articles that are correctly graded at the present time. I suggest you also read previous discussions in the talk page archives, the most recent being from December 2022. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technically a Start?

I see a wording problem. If taken literally, "The article has one or more of the following: A useful picture or graphic" means that a photo alone is sufficient to turn a stub into a Start. On his talk page, SounderBruce wrote, "That criteria alone is not sufficient and frankly should have been removed from the template long ago. In the view of most content editors, a 3-sentence article is still a stub, especially if it only has one reliable source." Can we formalize this, or would it proverbially "open a can of worms"? Bearian (talk) 00:21, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For a solution, I propose adding in, "but that alone is not sufficient." Bearian (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Grading Scheme

I changed the way the rules were written, though I did not discuss the changes. Do they look good now? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AGrading_scheme&diff=1287706579&oldid=1269064173 Floating Orb (talk) 16:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. The grading scheme was agreed several years ago by multiple experienced editors. I realise that you've only been on Wikipedia for a couple of months; but regardless of length of service, you simply cannot make major changes unilaterally. See WP:Consensus. As an essential first step, you must show that there is a problem with the existing grading scheme. You do that by describing the problem either here on this talk page, or (better) at Wikipedia talk:Content assessment. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:42, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Explanatory notes

I noticed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Haiti/Assessment that this template creates an explanatory note that lingers a bit awkwardly at the end of the page. This seems to be a recent thing, though. Wikipedia:WikiProject Archaeology/Assessment has a note, but it didn't in a web archive a few months ago. Is this supposed to happen and is there a fix for it? Averageuntitleduser (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are being transcluded from Wikipedia:Good article criteria and Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria.

The simplest solution would be to remove those from the |detail= parameter, and replace them with something like "See [link]". It might also make this page more functional, since that narrow column would not be filled with a long list of criteria – criteria that nobody using this grading scheme is actually allowed to evaluate anyway, since FA, FP, FL, and GA all go through a separate process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]