Grants:IdeaLab/Colour the links in special colours so everybody knew whether the article is good or stub
What is the problem you're trying to solve?
The idea is, some articles are good, but are classified as B articles, and bad ones, classified as Stub. However, when I open any of the articles in 4 languages I know, I can't know which is better one and which is worse. So the problem is about further identifying of the articles' quality, but not at the talk page but just in a moment.
What is your solution?
1) We shall introduce special symbols for that. Maybe a pop-up about instructing about the quality identifying at a glance may be needed(of course with the option of never showing that again). If the mouse is on the language link, it tells the language, name of the article in the language and the mark for the article. The symbols are:Yellow and blue stars remain(with green links), an A is dark green, a B is light green, a C is yellow, a Start is orange and a Stub is red. Lists are all blue, with yellow star featured. I also propose "Good list" for the articles(blue link+blue star). A category is a brown link, for example, disambiguation cyan, draft are black. Media: all media are violet links. Stars are given(I propose "Good media", too). Not assessed are grey, unassessed too(in description of the link shown there will be three dots. If some doubts occur, a question mark will be put. For importance scale: Low has no exclamation marks after the rate, Medium one, High 3 and Top 5. Not assessed and unassessed articles have three dots instead. The link will look like: Polish złoty - English, Rate - C(B unchequed) for numismatics, C for Poland-related; importance - !!! 2)Every article should be rechequed against the Wikipedia criteria. After that a mark is put. Here the input of the mark should be tied in some computer program(s) with the link colour. 3)Show the quality of the article right next to the topic(Like: Polish zloty(this is a "C"(colour) article in "Numismatics" category. Wasn't chequed for "B"(colour))etc.
1) Make the identification of bad and good articles at an instance. 2) Show that some articles badly need expansion. This will make the editing of Wikipedia more efficient, with filling the gaps of the articles in some languages, so thatthere were enough Hindi articles: half a billion speak Hindi but there are approx. 101000 articles only, while Polish wikipedia, with about 43 mln speaking, has more than 1150000 articles.
Anybody is welcome here. Your help will be appreciated by those using Wikipedia. Please show the candidates on my mail.
- As someone who would like to make a greater contribution to Wikipedia, this is a brilliant idea that will make it more obvious what needs to be improved and expanded and what should probably be left alone. Scruffy441 (talk) 01:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)