Wikipedia:WikiProject Rankings/old

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This proposal was rejected by the community. It has not gained consensus and seems unlikely to do so. Per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines: "A rejected page is any proposal for which consensus support is not present, regardless of whether there's active discussion or not."

This is the old set of ideas which were voted against. Exists as an interesting thought. Please do not edit as this is basicaly an archive. --Cool Cat My Talk 03:29, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia:Barnstar_and_award_proposals#Ranking and Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Ranking

If you strongly opose the project and have a sarcastic comment to make move it elsewehere, I will remove silly comments. Just vote no if you do not like it and be civil. You are still obligated to follow proper wiki.

As are you. This includes neither disagreeing by deleting nor trying to play dictator. This page belongs to everybody.

This project is for the idea of having a ranking system in Wikipedia. Please discuss in talk and make suggestions here (if any)

Contents

[edit] Vote

Please vote for/against this project at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rankings

[edit] Proposals

[edit] Suggestion 1

This suggestion is no longer appealing... --Cool Cat My Talk 03:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Suggested by --Cool Cat My Talk 08:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Giving Admins special status has been declared a bad idea, they exist as a place holder currently.
Rank Applies to List of people
Wikipedia Founders Jimmy Wales, Larry Sanger
Elite Admins (notable contribution as well as moderation) Neutrality
Promising Admins (Some contribution and notable moderation) MGM
Veteran Admins (Some contribution/moderation) none listed
Newbie Admins (Wikipedians who just got their Admin title) Mel Etitis
Elites(Non-Admin Wikipedians with exeptional contribution to wikipedia) BM
Neutral Mediators (Wikipedians awarded mediator Barnstar Wiki Wiffle Bat) Silsor
Veterans 1st Class (Wikipedians awarded multiple Barnstar) none listed
Veterans 2nd Class (Wikipedians awarded two Barnstar) Husnock
Veterans 3rd Class (Wikipedians awarded one Barnstar) Coolcat
Veterans 4th Class (Wikipedians with notable contribution without a Barnstar) Guettarda
Veterans 5th Class (Wikipedians who made some contribution to wikipedia) Jugoslaven
Newbie upper half (Wikipedians strugling with policy/format/style with some contribution) none listed
Newbie lower half (Wikipedians who just started contributing or not contribute) none listed
Warrant Editor 1st class (Anonymous wikipedians (IP usernames) and not fall into below categories) none listed
Warrant Editor 2st class (Wikipedians not following Wikiquette but contributing Wikipedia) none listed
Warrant Editor 3rd class (Chronic Point Of View pushers) 67.43.20.50
Warrant Editor 4th class (Disturbed people who refer to Personal Attacks) 24.45.99.191
Chronic Vandalists 216.194.62.104
68/69 series

[edit] Suggestion 2

Suggested by --Cool Cat My Talk 08:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

An excelent idea by JRM inspiring me. How about 1 = 3 pip rank above, 2 - 5 be fleet admiral as listed in Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits as fleet admirals 5-15 admirals 16 - 40 vice admiral 41 - 110 rear admiral 111 - 297 commodore 298 - 807 fleet captain.. and so forth folowing y = 2e^x (rounded). More ranks can be generated like Rear Admiral upper half, lower half and so forth. We can wory about the naming of the ranks later. --Cool Cat My Talk 22:41, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Rank Applies to rank on Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits
1st
2nd, 3rd
4th - 15th
16th-40th
41th-109th
110-297
298-807
808-2193
2194-5962
2963-16206
16207-44053
44054-119748
119749-325510
325511-884827
884828-2405209
2405210-6538035
6538036-17772221
17772222-48309906
48309907-131319938
131319939-356,964,601


[edit] Suggestion 3

by —Charles P. (Mirv)

Rogue Admins (Admins who regularly abuse their admin powers) none listed
Not an Ordinary Bean (Them as wants it) Mirv

[edit] Suggestions

[edit] Exploits/Questions

  • What about users that dont want to be ranked?
Well, its optional. --Cool Cat My Talk 03:54, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
And unpopular. What is the use of this system if only three people use it? —Charles P. (Mirv) 04:32, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • What if some smart ass sugests he is more valuable because he ranks higer.
I have never heard of a barnstar user declaring him important because of his/her award. This ment to motivate users, not inject them arrogance. --Cool Cat My Talk 03:54, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Because barnstars are given for a large variety of reasons: basically because someone else thinks the recipient has done something outstanding. Arbitrary number of edits or whatever do not enter into the equation. There is no hierarchy of barnstars. —Charles P. (Mirv) 04:32, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Also, barnstars are clearly awarded by individuals. There is no appearance of any WikiAuthority standing behind them. FreplySpang (talk) 16:53, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • What about people who make superficial edits to increase their rank?
The posible abuse of advancing ranks with hundereds of edits is not quite posible. The lower your rank is the more people who share it. The gap lessens the higher you go up as visible from listing. So it gets more competititve. This ment to motivate users, not inject them arrogance. --Cool Cat My Talk 03:54, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Is something wrong with the current set of motivations to contribute? Why is this hierarchy of meaningless little graphics necessary to get people to contribute? Why should users be competing at all? We all have a common aim, don't we? MeatBall:BarnRaising. —Charles P. (Mirv) 04:32, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • How many people can be "ranked"?
Proposal 2 Ranking can handle 356,964,601 people currently. That can be increased or decrased rather easily.--Cool Cat My Talk 04:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Who cares? —Charles P. (Mirv) 04:32, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Questions/Possible Exploits

  • suggest here.

[edit] Ranking determined by

  • Number of edits (as suggested above)--Cool Cat My Talk 00:56, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The level of contribution (how much material added) (as suggested above)--Cool Cat My Talk 00:56, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Number of edits to Star Trek related 'articles' -- Davenbelle 07:47, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • A few seconds with a ruler. —Charles P. (Mirv) 02:21, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Opinion on Wikiproject Pokécruft --Carnildo 22:38, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • New:
  • please add a productive suggestion

[edit] Naming of project

  • Contributor Ranking -- Zscout370 01:26, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • WikiDevotion Ranking -- Riffsyphon1024 07:33, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Trekcruft Pip-Squeaks -- Davenbelle 07:40, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • WikiProject Penis Measuring —Charles P. (Mirv) 02:17, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Oops, how sexist of me. Female Wikipedians should of course use whatever measurement seems most appropriate. —Charles P. (Mirv) 20:11, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • S(Brain size*brain density) / A(Brain size*brain density) | S=Wikipedian, A=Average of all Wikipedian community | Fadix 04:25, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • New:
  • please add a productive suggestion

[edit] Naming of individual ranks

  • Just use numbers (inches, centimeters, or both). —Charles P. (Mirv) 02:37, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • New:
  • please add a productive suggestion

[edit] How should it look?

  • Golden and Black/Hollow barnstars --Cool Cat My Talk 00:56, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • "Hard to follow, please elaborate the logic, if you are trying to be funny, I am not laughing", added Coolcat, at 12:56, 13 Apr 2005:
  • Like this ;-) — Sgt. Davenbelle 07:49, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • How do you expect people to see white? And how does that apply to individual ranks?
  • Fill in sections with whatever color you please. Expand as needed. —Charles P. (Mirv) 02:44, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) →
  • New:
  • please add a productive suggestion

[edit] Where should it appear

  • not justified for lame jokes. — Davenbelle 06:57, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • New:
  • please add a productive suggestion
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia%7EWikiProject_Rankings_old_0ec3.html"