Content deleted Content added
m nav |
m MSGJ moved page Template talk:WPBannerMeta/Archive 5 to Module talk:WikiProject banner/Archive 5: discussion more relevant to module not the wrapper template |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 3:
== "Investigate balance of C_NOTEs vs TFs" ==
As promised... From the [[:Category:WPBannerMeta banners using collapsed notes|tracking category]], we see that 27 banners use one or more of the collapsed notes. From [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:WPBannerMeta/hooks/taskforces&limit=500&namespace=10 WhatLinksHere], we see that 21 banners use the /taskforces hook, indicating that they have an inadequate number of taskforces built into the banner. These results surprised me a little, I admit, but they seem correct. I remember that several of the projects using the hook have a ''huge'' number of taskforces, such that it would be a hopeless task trying to add enough taskforces for them. Consequently, and a little surprisingly, I don't think there's anything to be done here. Comments?
:Another question that could be asked is: Should WPBannerMeta still support the collapsed notes directly or should those banners use the HOOK_COLLAPSED parameter and the [[Template:WPBannerMeta/hooks/notes|hooks/notes]] template instead? -- [[User:WOSlinker|WOSlinker]] ([[User talk:WOSlinker|talk]]) 19:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
::I think it's important to have some support for 'basic' functionality in the core code; we could split a whole host of things out into hooks, but we'd soon find ourselves with nothing left in the main banner. Whether collapsed notes count as "basic" functionality is not entirely unequivocal, however.
:::27 is not so many, and it would actually simplify the syntax somewhat to just use hook_collapsed. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 22:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
== Importance ==
Now that the banner is using the {{tl|Class}} template, just thinking about having something similar for Importance. The Importance template is already being used, so would need to think of another name to use though. -- [[User:WOSlinker|WOSlinker]] ([[User talk:WOSlinker|talk]]) 12:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
:In general, yes, I'd love to do that. I think it's worth making at least an attempt to get hold of that template name; that template itself is essentially a fork of {{tlx|notability}} and so should be merged/redirected there. Do we have icons for the importance scale?
::What about using an abbreviation such as {{tl|Impor}}? We don't have icons for importance, and (not surprising given my comments above) I don't see why we would need any. [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 18:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
::FWIW, {{tl|priority}} is unused. I also went ahead and created {{tl|importancecol}} in anticipation of future use. [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 15:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
:::''No way'' are we mixing up importance and priority any more than we already have <
::::{{Done}} I've gone ahead and created {{tl|Impor}} and {{tl|Imporicon}}. There are icons for NA-Importance and Unknown-Importance. The only thing left is to bring {{tl|Impor}} into the template. <span style="border:2px double #ffffff;padding:1px;background:#000000"> [[User:Dylanlip|'''<span style="color:#15D5FE">Dyla</span><span style="color:#FF0000">nlip</span>''']] </span> ([[User talk: Dylanlip#top|talk]]) 16:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
:::::Hello? I never got a response from anyone about this. This seems extremely important. :| <span style="border:2px double #ffffff;padding:1px;background:#000000"> [[User:Dylanlip|'''<span style="color:#15D5FE">Dyla</span><span style="color:#FF0000">nlip</span>''']] </span> ([[User talk: Dylanlip#top|talk]]) 12:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
::::::Is it? IMO the [[Template_talk:WPBannerMeta/Archive_4#Playing_well_with_WPBS.3F|total borkage]] on Safari would seem to be more important, although a much trickier problem to resolve. Having said that, I am grateful to you for putting the code together.
Will also need some support for the priority categories as well, either by adding support in {{tl|impor}} or by having a separate template. -- [[User:WOSlinker|WOSlinker]] ([[User talk:WOSlinker|talk]]) 17:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
:Would that not be done via the {{para|category}} parameter as with the existing templates? [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 17:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
::He means that the "-importance" part of the category link is hardcoded into {{tlx|impor}}, which will break when "-priority" should be used.
:::Why hardcode it then? That seems counterproductive here. [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 15:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 30:
:Yes you are right, it will set to '''Automatically assessed {{{PROJECT}}} articles''' by default. I'm hesitant to just change it though because it may affect quite a lot of banners which already have the category in the current ___location ... — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 22:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
::It would require help at [[WP:CFD]], a mass speedy rename. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">[[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]]</span></b> [[[User talk:SMcCandlish|talk]]] [[[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|cont]]] <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 01:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
:::Don't forget {{para|AUTO_ASSESS_CAT}}; there is already the facility to customise this category. I agree that it should include the value of {{para|ASSESSMENT_CAT}} in the fallback chain, but we can probably make the change silently if we're careful.
== Need help at [[:template:WikiProject Middle Ages]] ==
{{resolved}}
Please see requests at [[Template talk:WikiProject Middle Ages#adding to wrong assessment categories]]. Thank you. --[[User:Funandtrvl|Funandtrvl]] ([[User talk:Funandtrvl|talk]]) 15:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 70:
}}
</pre>
:Other than that, I can't see anything against it.
::Excellent suggestion. And that leaves the way open for ''QUALITY_SCALE=medium'' (or something) later on :) — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 09:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
::Short ... or "standard"? — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 09:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
:::Just a question on this, instead of just checking for the existence of Template:BANNER/class, and using it automatically if it does exist, how about QUALITY_SCALE = custom ? One advantage of this is that currently, if a banner is editprotected, anyone can still come along & create a /class page and mess things up for that banner. Only using it if QUALITY_SCALE = custom would close that issue. -- [[User:WOSlinker|WOSlinker]] ([[User talk:WOSlinker|talk]]) 10:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
::::Hmn.... I agree that that's an attack vector for protected banners. But I don't want to think about the mess that would be created by transcluding a nonexistent custom mask. Perhaps what this parameter should be doing is acting as an override to any 'intelligence' in the banner; in that case we're looking at values of "no", "short"/"standard" (still not sure which is better there), "full" and "custom". And anything ''else'' is "auto" - the banner does its best to work out what is intended. We could do ¬ checking on {{para|class}} and actually do away with the ''requirement'' to set this parameter altogether: if class is passed through, we assume quality scale is active. Maybe. Thoughts?
:::::I hadn't even thought of someone trying to use the class file as an attack vector during the [[Template talk:WPBannerMeta/Archive 4#Please pass parameters FQS and B_CHECKLIST on to custom overrides of WPBannerMeta/class|last discussion]]. I guess this one will end up revisited after all :/ --[[User:Tothwolf|Tothwolf]] ([[User talk:Tothwolf|talk]]) 14:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
:::::(e/c)I agree that it would be good not to check for a custom class unless ''class=custom''. This would save a lot of ifexist calls and prevent possible disruption as WOS describes. In reply to H-M, no this will not work I think. In that case, if ''class'' wasn't defined by an instance of the banner, then the banner would not know whether quality scale was being used. (I thought about doing that exact thing in the past.) — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 14:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 89:
--> class == ¬ for all foo
</pre>
:That's the whole principle of the ¬ chains - if they're broken at any point they pick up a unique value at the endpoint. We'd just need to set a default of ¬ in WPBM main and /core. Even ignoring [[WP:PERFORMANCE]], the performance benefits of only using the custom mask with {{para|QUALITY_SCALE|custom}} would be minimal because we would have to do the #ifexist: check on the custom mask anyway if told to use it; the results of not doing it would be too ugly to think about. And we have no need to ignore WP:PERFORMANCE; we can instead legitimately ignore ''performance'' <
:I think we're agreed that {{para|QUALITY_SCALE|custom}} should be expecting a custom mask, but what do we do when that mask does not exist?
:Equally, banners with {{para|QUALITY_SCALE|full/short}} should ''not'' use the custom mask even if it exists. We can do some pretty crazy things on /templatepage with the resources we have available; we could add a warning message only on protected templates suggesting that they switch to one of these values to close the attack vector. But I'm not convinced that removing the 'automagic' from the scale-selection process is a positive step.
::#Hmm, I think that if ''class'' was defined empty then it wouldn't pick up a ¬ currently.
::#If custom is defined but there doesn't exist a custom mask then just use the standard scale I guess.
Line 97:
::#Advising about an "attack vector" is [[WP:BEANS]], isn't it? :P — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 15:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
:::Yes, that's exactly the point. It'd take a few tweaks which we could probably do live (passing a default of ¬ to /class, and returning ¬=¬ in the #switch statement); the point is that the only way WPBM/core can ever receive {{para|class|¬}} is if the parameter is ''not'' passed through from the WikiProject banner at the end of the line, and so the default value of something-other-than-¬ is injected there.
:::I guess we'd have to, but that just reinforces this new {{para|QUALITY_SCALE|custom}} as just another switch to flick in order to use a custom mask. We're not launching nuclear missiles here <
:::If it makes the code more efficient for 90% of banners, but makes life more difficult for 10% of users, then we shouldn't do it.
:::It would if I thought that any serious vandals actually watched this page <
:::In summary, I'm mainly concerned that adding "you must set {{para|QUALITY_SCALE|custom}}" to the (currently very short) list of things you need to do to use a custom mask, is sacrificing ease of use for performance and for security against a threat that's not particularly severe. I fully agree that there should ''be'' a way to disable the use of a custom mask even if it exists; I think {{para|QUALITY_SCALE|short/full}} should do that. I guess {{para|QUALITY_SCALE|custom}} should "force" the use of a custom mask, although that's a fairly toothless assertion since we have to do existence checking and fall back to standard if it's not there. I just don't think we should lose the 'magic' from {{para|QUALITY_SCALE|yes}} without good cause; if anything, we should be trying to make it ''more'' 'magical'.
::::Thanks for the long reply. It's useful to hear what others are thinking. So if I'm reading this right, there is at least one point on which we all agree: if ''class'' has been set to ''standard/short'' or ''full'' then it shouldn't use a custom mask even if it exists. There are still a several other points to be ironed out. I anticpate being busy for the next couple of days, but after that I will try to set out the advantages and disadvantages of each approach that we have identified so far. About the ¬ thing, I guess you are right; I have to admit to never understanding fully what the ¬ thing was all about :) But I feel that whatever we decide with regards to QUALITY_SCALE is likely to make that consideration moot, so I suggest we forget about that for the time being. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 23:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 107:
Many projects have followed the guidelines and set up a <code>Category:Image-Class XXX articles</code>. Now the code appears to be prompting for a <code>Category:File-Class XXX articles</code> as well. Obviously both categories refer to the same type of page, so which naming convention should we use? My preference is for "File", as this matches the new(ish) name of the namespace. [[User:Physchim62|Physchim62]] [[User talk:Physchim62|(talk)]] 00:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
:Currently, File-Class can only be achieved with a custom class mask, and it would be a lot of work to change the default behaviour because 550 categories would have to be created and another 550 deleted. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 05:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
::However, I think that such a transition would probably be a constructive way to proceed. I agree that it would be a ''huge'' undertaking, and would have to be bot-assisted. I have approval for a bot script that could duplicate all the "Image-Class" categories as "File-Class", and then we could do one massive switch (and lots of little ones on the templates with custom masks) to change the categories over. I could write another script to go through all the then-empty Image-Class categories changing all WhatLinksHere to point to the File-Class ones, and then delete the old categories. However, while technically feasible it's still quite a noticeable change. Ignore the technical aspects: it ''can'' be done. Is it a "good idea"??
:::Sure it is. :) Having already initiated a switch to File-Class it makes no sense to stop at this point. If you feel you need the thumbs up from a wider section of the community then that's fine, but there's no logic in continuing to have File-Class feed Image-Class categories. [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 14:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
::::I agree, it is important to keep it consistent. If the category is now called "File-Class", then the automatic prompts from WPBM should be pointing to "File-Class", not "Image-Class", otherwise, it is too confusing. (For example, see discussion above concerning WP Archy). --[[User:Funandtrvl|Funandtrvl]] ([[User talk:Funandtrvl|talk]]) 15:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 115:
== Lotsa notes ==
Is there a limit on the number of notes which can be defined in the banner? I've got a somewhat specialized set of notes I'm trying to do [[:Template:WikiProject Japan|over here]], but they don't seem to be working. I'd like the section to be collapsed so it doesn't get too long, but I think I need some assistance with it. Thanks! ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<
:You can use up to five uncollapsed (note 1, note 2, etc.) and five collapsed (c note 1, c note 2, etc.) with the usual syntax. For more than that, you will need to use the hook: [[Template:WPBannerMeta/hooks/notes]] which can either be attached using HOOK_NOTE (for uncollapsed) or HOOK_COLLAPSED (for collapsed). I'll come and look at what you're doing. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 08:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
::Aha. I figured there would be something like that. I appreciate any help. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<
:::49 notes!!!?? This is ridiculous, frankly. Let me try to find a better way to do this. And I suggest working in the [[Template:WikiProject Japan/sandbox|sandbox]] for now. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 08:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
::::Yes, like I said, "Lotsa notes". I've been trying to figure out a way which would be shorter, but I'm not big into programming. I can implement something someone makes, but can't always figure out how to do it myself. :)
::::One thing which is a special case here are these two categories: [[:Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Hokkaidō]] and [[:Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Tokyo]]. Unlike the other related categories, they don't have "Prefecture" tacked onto the end. So, these two would require special code to accommodate that. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<
I'm going to reply on [[Template talk:WikiProject Japan]]. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 09:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 139:
And you'll see a warning & an extra category used for the substituted version. -- [[User:WOSlinker|WOSlinker]] ([[User talk:WOSlinker|talk]]) 16:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
:That's all very well, but it's not {{tlx|WPBannerMeta}} that's being substituted (leaving direct calls to {{tlx|WPBannerMeta/core}} out in the wilderness). It's {{tlx|WikiProject Tulips}} being substituted to leave direct transclusions of {{tlx|WPBannerMeta}}; your idea would require each individual banner to implement the bulk of the anti-subst checks, with the extra difficulty of how to react to banners not correctly implementing the check. Could be tricky. But I admit, probably not as tricky as building a subst check system that is coded entirely in WPBM itself... <
::Yes, the check would need to be an extra parameter added to each banner (just like small, category & listas) but the checking part would be in WPBannerMeta. The extra parameter should be written so that if it's blank then the banner isn't using the checking option and no warnings would ever be shown. Each banner that wanted subst checking would need to add something similar to:
Line 158:
<pre>{{#ifeq:{{{substcheck|}}}|SUBST|{{WPBannerMeta/substwarning}}}}</pre>
::::So is it better to display the warning ''as well as'' the banner or ''instead of''? — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 20:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Well I'm answering my own question and I decided that it's probably better to have it as well as. Therefore I suggest combining the two warnings pages into [[Template:WPBannerMeta/warnings]] and moving putting it on the main template instead of the core. I think we can use the existing category [[:Category:WikiProject banners with formatting errors]] for both types of error (with different sort key). I have proposed code at [[Template:WPBannerMeta/sandbox]]. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 14:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)<p></p>
Oh, and instead of using the {{tl|yesno}} template, which creates a lot of mess when substituted, I suggest using a new one {{tl|substcheck}} which just contains the word "SUBST". — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 14:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)<p></p>
Last thing: there are demonstrations of all combinations of the warnings at [[User:MSGJ/Sandbox3]] and [[User talk:MSGJ/Sandbox3]]. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 14:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
:Hmn, I wrote a response to the "as well as or instead of" question, also asking about why we were using {{tlx|yesno}}; seems to have got lost, but looks like you read my mind anyway! The warning look very good; I especially like the "Please replace it with this"... I just wonder if it's worth passing the {{para|class}} and {{para|importance}} parameters through so we can say "please replace it with ''this''" and not have them lose any assessments in the process...? Would be impossible to do it for any of the trigger parameters that get renamed, but we could do it for those two... Otherwise, I love it!
::Implemented. Hopefully there will be no problems ... Shall we add these to all the banners or just stick a information box on templatepage to advise of the new feature? — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 07:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
:::Perhaps we should be building a 'queue' of changes that need to be rolled out to the banners; then we can run occasional bot runs to implement whatever changes are waiting all at once, minimise disruption to people's watchlists.
::::Good idea. There might be a few things to do soon ... Umm, the substcheck syntax has wrecked the documentation layout because it's so long. I'm not sure how to fix it. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 09:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
:::::I fixed it, but god knows what it'll look like on small screens (or wide screens for that matter) <
::::::Unfortunately it looks horrible on IE :( — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 14:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 171:
#Regarding [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:WPBannerMeta/warnings&curid=22465646&diff=284997894&oldid=284965829 this edit], it was deliberate not a slip: I was thinking that it might be simpler if we could enfore that sandboxes must use the subpagename rather than their fullpagename. It is my most common error when copying a sandbox over :)
#We seem to have a possible problem with /testcases pages. Unless category=no it is interpreted as templatepage which is not usually desirable. Would it be a good idea to put an exception for that in istemplate? — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 14:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
::/testcases ''should'' always be {{para|category|no}}. If we included an exception in /istemplate for testcases not to be templatepages, then the locwarning message would start cropping up, telling them to set {{para|category|no}} anyway. I'm not sure if it's worth it, although it could probably be done fairly elegantly. But what about /Testcases, /test, /testing, etc etc?? We can't make exceptions for all of them.
=== subst testcases ===
Line 181:
== ASSESSMENT_CAT ==
On a similar note, it's been bugging me for some time that the syntax of {{Para|PROJECT}} as it applies to categories, and {{para|ASSESSMENT_CAT}}, are not the same: in the latter case you have to append "articles". Every instance of ASSESSMENT_CAT has to include the word "articles", as all [[:Category:FA-Class Foo articles]] cats have that word at the end. It's pointless, therefore, to have it as a separate parameter. We should change the syntax of {{para|ASSESSMENT_CAT}} to be just the "Foo" from "FA-Class Foo articles", just like {{para|PROJECT}} is. I'm reasonably confident that this can be done silently. If it can, is it a good idea?
:Could we add a tracking parameter to find out how many projects do not have ASSESSMENT_CAT either undefined, or defined as PROJECT articles? — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 12:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
::None of them, unless you can find me a category in [[:Category:FA-Class articles]] that doesn't end with "articles". Setting {{para|ASSESMENT_CAT}} to something other than "Foo articles" would change this value too, so no one is going to be doing it. I'll knock up a tracking cat for templates actually using the parameter at all.
::I've added a tracking cat [[:Category:WPBannerMeta banners using ASSESSMENT_CAT]] that should catch all uses of an explicit {{para|ASSESSMENT_CAT}} parameter (unless it's set to PROJECT articles, of course), and hopefully will sort them by the index of the substring "articles" in the parameter value, which is pretty neat. Any that pop up sorted under "-1" need to be investigated more thoroughly.
:::I used "pages" in {{tl|WPAFC-admin}} because there are no articles :) When I said PROJECT above I was referring to the actual parameter name. Lots of different variations are used apart from PROJECT articles: ''PROJECT-related articles'', ''WikiProject PROJECT articles'', etc. etc. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 13:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
::::Trus you to be responsible for the one anomaly <
:::::Well, if it's only AFC that's the anomaly then I suppose I won't stand in the way :) But this seems like one of those situations where it would have been better to do something differently in hindsight but perhaps not worth the bother in changing it. I hope you don't mind me saying, but the COMMENT -> COMMENTS change has got to be the biggest waste of expert template coders time ever! — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 16:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
::::::Looks like it's only AfC and the mysterious [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Editing trends|WikiProject Editing trends]] that use anything other than "articles". I largely agree with you, this would have been much easier a long time ago. But it's the little things that make the big things happen <
:::::::Okay, WPAFC won't stand in the way of progress ;) By the way, I thought I'd offended you there for a while. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 14:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
::::::::What, by calling me an expert template coder? Yes, mortally <
== Help with peer review hook ==
Line 199:
:One possible way might be to do this. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 14:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
<pre>{{SUBJECTPAGENAME:{{#if:{{{title|}}}|{{{title}}}|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}}</pre>
::That should be safe. What is the problem, exactly? It can probably be filed as a bug.
:::I tried to explain as best I could ... the colon in <nowiki>:{{{title}}}</nowiki> is interpreted as a paragraph indent rather than a colon which the magic word requires. Therefore the output looks like
{{SUBJECTPAGENAME
:something}}
:::and the magic word doesn't get parsed properly. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 14:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
::::WTF!?! That's crazy!
:::::Yeah, this is actually a bug that affects all characters which are used to denote list wikimarkup, and one I've bashed my head against trying to fix more than once (unfortunately, there are often cases where simply enclosing it in <nowiki/> tags won't work, such as the above (I think)). I have the distinct feeling that the only reason other markup doesn't do this as well is because list wikimarkup is really the only type that requires a single character to trip the parser. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">「[[User:Dinoguy1000|ダイノ]][[User talk:Dinoguy1000|<span style="color: #080; font-weight: normal;">ガイ</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Dinoguy1000|<span style="color: #F90;">千</span>]]？！」<sup>(Dinoguy1000)</sup></span> 18:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
== sandbox notice ==
Line 221:
== Reassessment flag? ==
Any idea how common they are, or how wanted they would be by the general project population? [[WP:USRD]] has one, and I was thinking of adding one to [[WP:CFB]] via a note parameter. But it made me wonder; if this is a pretty common feature, perhaps it could be something that goes into the base, much like "attention=" and "needs-infobox". We could have "reassess=", which puts articles into "Category:<project> articles needing reassessment". Any thoughts?
:In my experience this is not a very widely used feature, so I would suggest a note. However, I was going to suggest ''image-needed'' as a general feature because these are very common. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 15:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
::Thanks for the info on both counts. Gonna request the note for [[WP:CFB]].
== Adding 3 more taskforces to the physics template. ==
Line 230:
The three parameters would be |bio= |pub= and |hist=. The final behaviour should be identical to the other taskforces (full assessment scale). Relevant categories would be physics biographies, physics publications, and physics history (capitalized in the same way as the other taskforces). The name of the taskforces would be ''Biographies Taskforce'', ''Publications Taskforce'' and ''History Taskforce'', but they would all link to [[WikiPedia:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/BPH]]. Thanks. [[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {<sup>[[User talk:Headbomb|ταλκ]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|κοντριβς]]</sub> – [[WP:PHYS|WP Physics]]} 19:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
:Hooks are reasonably simple if you know what you're looking at, although I agree they're not nearly as intuitive as the 'basic' code. I've added the two hooks that you need for the third extra taskforce; now you can just fill in the various parameters as usual. Hope this helps,
:::Alright thanks. I think I got it right.[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {<sup>[[User talk:Headbomb|ταλκ]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|κοντριβς]]</sub> – [[WP:PHYS|WP Physics]]} 19:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 236:
== C- and B-Class assessments ==
For a while, if all the B-Class criteria weren't filled in and marked as "yes", the articles were listed as C-Class even if they had been assessed as "class=B". Now it just lists them as B-Class even if the B-Class criteria aren't filled in and marked "yes". Is this a change to {{tl|WPBannerMeta}}, or did something weird happen to {{tl|WikiProject Japan}}? I can't see anything in the code for {{tl|WikiProject Japan}} which would do this. Thanks for any help! ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<
:Ah, that would be the code in your custom class mask [[Template:WikiProject Japan/class]]. Probably occured from when Redirect-Class was implemented on your banner. I'll come and fix ... — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 17:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
::{{fixed}}. Apologies from Happy-Melon. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 17:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
:::Shit, I need to slow down a bit. Sorry about that, guys.
:::Oh, it's "ok", I didn't screw up when I thought I did (when I blitzed about five banners in half an hour). Full steam ahead then <
::::Thanks. I just noticed it that last week or so and was waiting to see if it might fix itself (as some things have done with the banner). :) ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<
== [[:Template:WikiProject Economics]] ==
Line 247:
:1. At [[File talk:Basic price ceiling.svg]], even though it is categorized correctly into NA-Class and NA-importance, the Unassessed-Class, Unassessed-importance Economics articles cat still shows up. Does one have to use the class & importance tags all the time with this template? Is there a way to eliminate that?
:2. At [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics]], (the main page, not the talk page) even though the displayed banner is using category=no, the Unassessed-Class, Unassessed-importance Economics articles cat is still showing up. Is there anyway to fix this? Thanks --[[User:Funandtrvl|Funandtrvl]] ([[User talk:Funandtrvl|talk]]) 19:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
:That intersection category is not part of WPBM; it's tacked on the bottom of the template. As such, it doesn't have all the careful fallbacks and normalisation that the categories that come out of the 'main' banner get. I've added a {{para|category}} optout so your second example should be fixed. You could fix the first by duplicating the namespace switch from {{tlx|WPBannerMeta/class}}. It's a shame we can't pass the normalised values (the values for {{para|class}} and {{para|importance}} after WPBM has done its magic) back out to hooks like these, but it's just not feasible; as the devs keep saying, wikitext is a markup, not a programming language. Unfortunately.
::I've made some changes to do the categories. Hope they are ok. -- [[User:WOSlinker|WOSlinker]] ([[User talk:WOSlinker|talk]]) 07:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
::I've often thought that it should be possible to pass the name of the hook through, and then set up the core to call the hook and pass the required parameters ... By the way, don't forget we have [[Template:WPBannerMeta/hooks/qualimpintersect]] for this purpose, although I think the order of the words is different in this case. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 09:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
::::That would be ok if we knew for sure what parameters would be needed. But what happens when a banner needs to call /hooks/taskforces five times from {{para|HOOK_TF}} because they've got some ridiculous number of taskforces? If we could set up an 'environment' where {{para|class}} was 'initialised' to the normalised value, it would be fine; you can do that in most programming languages (or rather, the hook calls a given function with a particular set of parameters, which then creates a scope in which you can call other functions as many times as you like with those parameter values), but wikitext is most definitely ''not'' a programming language, and the devs are determined to keep it that way. You ''could'' do it in a similar fashion to the custom masks - WPBM looks for a {{tlx|WikiProject Tulips/HOOK_TF}} subtemplate and, if it exists, transcludes it in the right ___location with the normalised values - but that seems needlessly complicated for such a small benefit.
:::That's where I copied some of the code from. :) If you would expand [[Template:WPBannerMeta/hooks/qualimpintersect]] by adding another parameter to offer a number of different layout choices for the Category names then I could change the banner to use it. -- [[User:WOSlinker|WOSlinker]] ([[User talk:WOSlinker|talk]]) 11:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
:Thanks for all of your team's help, I think both problems are now fixed, the category=no works now and the NA-Class, NA-importance category is populating correctly! --[[User:Funandtrvl|Funandtrvl]] ([[User talk:Funandtrvl|talk]]) 01:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 288:
:::::I know! -- [[User:WOSlinker|WOSlinker]] ([[User talk:WOSlinker|talk]]) 20:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
::::::Tell me about it, especially when the projects haven't yet created all the (exponentially increasing number of) categories!! Since 'XX-Class TOPIC articles of YY-importance' seems to be used the most, I vote for standardizing the format to that form, and using 'Unassessed-Class', instead of just 'Unassessed...', because it makes sense and follows the pattern of the other categories' names. If you are able to do this, is there a way to redirect the categories using unstandardized names to categories using the standardized naming form, w/o having to cat redirect each one manually? --[[User:Funandtrvl|Funandtrvl]] ([[User talk:Funandtrvl|talk]]) 21:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
:And to think the whole system will become redundant when we get [[User:WP1.0 bot/Second generation|WP bot 2.0]]... <
::Good point, heaven forbid if we should cause a controversy!! :) Well, if we could at least set it up, so it'll be in some standardized form for new category creations from this day forward, and the projects can work on cat redirects, if necessary. I leave it in your capable hands! --[[User:Funandtrvl|Funandtrvl]] ([[User talk:Funandtrvl|talk]]) 22:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay we now have another parameter UNASSESSED_APPENDIX for specifying whether or not '''-Class''' appears after '''Unassessed'''. I suggest that the default should be blank though - we should surely be encouraging consistency with the usual Class categories. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 11:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
:{{done|Implemented}}. Please test it out and let me know of any problems. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 21:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
::'''Important''': Just noticed that the main template page (not the talk page) is getting placed into [[:Category:Unassessed-Class, Unknown-importance Economics articles]]. Something must be broken again, please help! --[[User:Funandtrvl|Funandtrvl]] ([[User talk:Funandtrvl|talk]]) 17:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
:::{{fixed}}, along with a few other bits and pieces in the code. Nice code, Martin, shame you left the "/sandbox" declarations in <
== Minimal width ==
Line 300:
:Looks perfect on my browser. Which are you using? — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 09:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)]
::Both Firefox (3.0.9) and IE 7 on windows XP. Here are some screenshots in [http://localhostr.com/files/f8a124/FF.JPG Firefox] and [http://localhostr.com/files/3aaf8c/IE7.JPG IE] (Sorry for the non compress, only have paint on here since its a fresh reinstall). [[User:Peachey88|Peachey88]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Peachey88|Talk Page]]<span style="font-weight:bold;"> ·</span> [[Special:Contributions/Peachey88|Contribs]])</sup> 10:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
::::You can actually save from paint as .png. Not a problem, though.
:::Hmm, [[spray-on condom]]s, what next? I don't understand the issue you are having because I've tested it on FF3.0.9 and IE7 as well and I see
:::#Perfect alignment on this page;
:::#Slightly-off on [[Talk:Spray-on condom]], but it's only a millimetre if that. Likely to be because [[Template:WP Sexuality]] doesn't use this meta template yet. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 11:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
::::Hmn, actually I have seen that before, when testing new CollapsibleTables code on test.wiki. I dismissed it as an artefact of being in a different environment without most of the CSS/JS here, but maybe it is an genuine problem. How widespread is the problem, and can anyone find examples where it's not, or not just, the first banner that's affected?
:::::Based on those screenshots, it may be that Peachey has a really wide monitor and so the page is behaving differently to what I/we see. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 12:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
:::::: I'm using a 22" @ 1680x1050 (widescreen i believe) here, although i can't find many others that are affected because most of the pages/articles i've check have theirs collapsed into WPB or WPBS, although I will keep an eye out. [[User:Peachey88|Peachey88]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Peachey88|Talk Page]]<span style="font-weight:bold;"> ·</span> [[Special:Contributions/Peachey88|Contribs]])</sup> 12:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 345:
-- [[User:WOSlinker|WOSlinker]] ([[User talk:WOSlinker|talk]]) 21:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
:Oh for god's sake, I thought this was over. I'll take a look tomorrow.
:Hmn, this is thoroughly perverse. Well spotted on the colspan=3, WOSlinker; wierd though it is, it makes it much easier to resolve. Although it probably qualifies as a Firefox bug (do people see it on other browsers?); maybe I'll file it over at their bugzilla. Is the version in the sandbox with colspan=4 now free of the issue?
::[[Template:WikiProject Anatomy/sandbox]] looks ok now when switched to use the WPBannerMeta/sandbox. I've put a reduced case in [[User:WOSlinker/tablebug]] for if you want to file a bug on bugzilla. -- [[User:WOSlinker|WOSlinker]] ([[User talk:WOSlinker|talk]]) 13:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
:::Looks okay on FF, but still the same on IE. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 13:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
::::And now? I think I found the problem with the fix <
:::::Looking good from here ... Congratulations. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 17:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Is this related? [[Template:ChicagoWikiProject]] doesn't show up properly for me. I'm using Firefox 3 and Windows XP Professional. Screen: [[:File:ChicagoWikiProject WPBM screen.PNG]]. [[User:Borgarde|Borgarde]] ([[User talk:Borgarde|talk]]) 15:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
:Yes, that's the same issue I think. I think Happy-melon has fixed it - just waiting for the fix to be applied to the live version! — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 15:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
::Well what are we waiting for!?! <
:::So the cause of this error was the fix for the last error, right? So I'm waiting for a group of people using another browser to turn up here complaining now :) — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 11:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
::::Yeah. I'm seriously impressed by the way the hounds have pounced over at [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=490643 Mozilla bugzilla]: I posted WOSlinker's code and linked to this discussion; the first guy gave the standard I-can't-see-it-you-must-be-a-noob, but within five hours they'd confirmed it on three operating systems and four Firefox builds, and six hours after that'd they'd tied it to a floating point error in six lines of code. I wish our devs were always that hyperactive <
== Need help at [[:Template:Cat class]] ==
Line 408:
::::**B1-B6=various - class at C
::::You may also want to have a look at the source of [[Template:WikiProject Anime and manga/B check]] and some of the [[Template:WikiProject Anime and manga/testcases|testcases]]. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">「[[User:Dinoguy1000|ダイノ]][[User talk:Dinoguy1000|<span style="color: #080; font-weight: normal;">ガイ</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Dinoguy1000|<span style="color: #F90;">千</span>]]？！」<sup>(Dinoguy1000)</sup></span> 19:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
:::::Seems like with the simple addition of a [[Template:WPBannerMeta/class|custom class mask]], WPBM would work. Just take the code you are using for the b-checklist, drop it in the mask, and you're good to go. Anything else?
::::::Dino, check your sandbox and testcases ;) — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 20:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Yep, so I saw. =) There are still a few issues relating to some esoteric assessments the current banner does (I think the only two are that it allows templates and categories to both be tagged as redirects, and that it allows project pages to be tagged as templates (and automatically does so if they are a subpage of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Userbox]])), the current banner uses some custom assessment categories ({{category|WikiProject Anime and manga templates}}, for instance), and there may be a few other details to suss out; I'm thinking really hard on just what this switch might inadvertently change (of course, we're not ready for it yet, all the task forces and other extras still have to be added). <span style="white-space: nowrap;">「[[User:Dinoguy1000|ダイノ]][[User talk:Dinoguy1000|<span style="color: #080; font-weight: normal;">ガイ</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Dinoguy1000|<span style="color: #F90;">千</span>]]？！」<sup>(Dinoguy1000)</sup></span> 20:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 441:
:— Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 12:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
::In the not-too-distant future, the bot that generates [[Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Chess articles by quality log|those neat stats tables]] is going to be updated; the new code (currently being tested) will do catgory intersections automatically. So each number in that table will become a link to a dynamically-generated list of intersections, without needing to maintain any of the intersection cats manually. So dropping the individual cats in favour of intersections won't just break the existing system, it'll be redundant to the new system; so you'd just have to reverse it when that new version comes out anyway. See [[User:WP 1.0 bot/Second generation]] for more details.
:::A bot is NOT required to create [[User:SunCreator/Test_Page3|those neat stats tables]], you can do it already with PAGESINCATEGORY, see [[User:SunCreator/Test_Page3]]. [[User:SunCreator|SunCreator]] ([[User talk:SunCreator|talk]]) 12:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Line 460:
The WP1.0 bot has run for years, and now maintains lists of 2 million articles for eight hundred projects. While I agree that the PAGESINCATEGORY magic word offers ''in principle'' a real-time update, this is in reality not usually true given the vagarities of the job queue and page caching. But I do not agree that the system you propose offers any greater flexibility; if anything, it offers less. The WP 1.0 bot currently generates [[Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Chess articles by quality log|logs]] and [[Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Chess articles by quality|a priority worlist]] that track the evolution of your project's articles over time. You can [http://toolserver.org/~cbm/cgi-bin/wp10.2g/alpha/cgi-bin/table.pl?project=Chess see for yourself] what the second generation bot will be like (this is obviously a alpha-phase, expect bugs at this stage): as well as overall stats, [http://toolserver.org/~cbm/cgi-bin/wp10.2g/alpha/cgi-bin/list2.pl?projecta=Chess&importance=High-Class&quality=Start-Class&run=yes intersections] are generated dynamically, including the timestamp and version link to ''when'' the assessment was made, and [http://toolserver.org/~cbm/cgi-bin/wp10.2g/alpha/cgi-bin/log.pl?project=Chess logs] on a per-project or per-page basis, showing the evolution of the article's rating over time. Historical graphs of how a project's articles have improved are likely to follow; and you can [http://toolserver.org/~cbm/cgi-bin/wp10.2g/alpha/cgi-bin/index.pl? see] how WPChess is doing in comparison to other projects at ensuring a thorough coverage of article assessments, for both quality and importance.
That's all the stuff that the WP1.0 team can do for your project. The 1.0 assessment scheme, as the name suggests, is not just about WikiProjects. The 1.0 Editorial Team is responsible for creating static releases of Wikipedia: online stable archives, DVDs, and even printed books. The Assessment Scheme is how the Editorial Team identify articles that are of a high-enough quality to be included in such static media: articles are assigned a weighting based on their ratings for quality and importance, and articles that receive a high-enough ranking get automatically compiled by a bot script, reviewed for quality and 'cleanliness', and compiled into the final release. So in one sense it's very simple: if no Chess-related articles are assessed on the 1.0 Assessment Scheme, no Chess articles will be considered for static releases. Of course, if articles happen to also be assessed by another project that ''does'' use the assessment scheme, then they may still be included, but many may not. For instance, [[Rules of chess]] would be excluded automatically, and articles like [[Emanuel Lasker]], despite being assessed by numerous other projects, probably wouldn't be identified either because the other projects have marked it as low-priority. And yet you ''are'' using the 1.0 Assessment Scheme, to the letter! Electing to go through the process of assessing and maintaining articles, yet not to take advantage of the benefits that that entails, both to WPChess and to Wikipedia in general, seems fundamentally misguided.
:'''To Happy-melon''': Thanks for your detailed explanations, now I see much more clearly what the new version of the bot will do. Sorry I did not explain myself clearly, my intention was not to abandon the assessment scheme, but simply to use directly the PAGESINCAT to manage the assessment table. As you notice, there are many other things the bot does and will do, so probably we will use both in parallel (I mean, the PAGESINCAT for the table and the bot for the other stuff, notably the log) until the 2nd version of the bot is alive, and fully switch to the bot then.
Line 467:
== Redirect-Class ==
One thing leads to another, and I find myself deciding to sort this issue out properly. We currently support Redirect-Class as an extended quality scale assessment. This obviously requires all projects that use the extended quality scale to create and maintain a [[:Category:Redirect-Class Foo articles|Redirect-Class Foo articles]] category; you can [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChangesLinked&limit=500&days=30&target=Category%3ARedirect-Class_articles see] that a significant number of the categories are created with the standard WPBM preloaded edit summary: they were created from the prompts below a WPBM banner. There are currently some 370-odd of these categories, of which 168 are completely empty and over 300 of which contain less than ten articles. Of the ten thousand pages marked as Redirect-Class, over 80% of them are assessed by just 15 projects. This seems to me to be indicative of a class that is very 'niche', and is only ''properly'' and ''correctly'' used by a tiny minority of projects, in the same manner as Current-Class and Future-Class. I am inclined, therefore, to treat Redirect-Class in the same manner as these other classes: easily accessible through a custom mask, but not something we should be 'inflicting' on every project that uses the extended quality scale. Thoughts?
:'''Absolute and total agreement'''. I've never seen the point of Redirect-Class myself but, if you say that some projects are using it, I wouldn't want to stop them. Most projects can't be bothered, or don't have redirects which are THAT important. [[User:Physchim62|Physchim62]] [[User talk:Physchim62|(talk)]] 20:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
::I agree. In my opinion redirects shouldn't ever have talk pages, but that's another matter altogether. - [[User:Trevor MacInnis|Trevor]] [[User talk:Trevor MacInnis|MacInnis]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/Trevor MacInnis|Contribs]])</small> 22:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 474:
A random sampling of categories suggests to me that Portal-Class, Image-Class and Project-Class (maybe others?) have a similar or lower level of usage than Redirect-Class. (Side question: Why are we still creating Image-Class categories? Have we not yet fully switched over to File-Class?) Personally I think you should scrap the extended quality scale altogether and then projects can pick and choose exactly what they want to use. At the very least I think it needs a rethink above and beyond the inclusion of Redirect-Class. [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 09:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
:But unlike Redirect-Class, those classes can be automatically assigned by namespace: all the project has to do is tag the relevant pages. It is a difference, I'm not sure if it is a fundamental one. I agree that it's an issue that probably needs to be looked at again.
:Transitioning from Image-Class to File-Class is possible, but is a big step that will require us to switch the categories for each and every project using WPBM; it's difficult if not impossible to do it piecemeal. It would be a huge operation.
::Classes can only be automatically assigned if a page has been tagged in the first place, and I think that's the reason for low usage. Regarding Portal-Class, surely it stands to reason that not every project will have an associated portal? What about Disambig-Class? I've not checked, but is there a significantly higher level of usage compared with Redirect-Class? [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 09:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
:::Disambig-Class [[User:MelonBot/sandbox1|has]] 648 subcats, of which again over half are empty. There are 80 categories with ten or more members, and numbers are more evenly shared amongst the populated categories than with Redirect-Class. Just food for thought.
::::Just wondering if that data is accurate, it says [[:Category:Disambig-Class Baseball articles]] has 0 when infact it has 5. (I know still not a high usage, but could be an issue with the rest of the categories]].). Same thing with [[:Category:Disambig-Class Indian music articles]], shows 0 on your list but really has 1. [[User:Borgarde|Borgarde]] ([[User talk:Borgarde|talk]]) 11:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
::::Can you find out how many talk page transclusions each of the non-standard class templates have? That might give some indication as to their level of usage. [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 16:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
:::::I can get that data from the toolserver, but it'll be impossible to filter out the uses in banners from uses on /Assessment project pages, etc. I'll get all transclusions to be consistent.
:::::{{tlx|Disambig-Class}} - 15,125 distinct pages.
:::::{{tlx|Template-Class}} - 25,352 pages
Line 485:
:::::{{tlx|Project-Class}} - 1,516
:::::{{tlx|Portal-Class}} - 3,336
:::::Any more people want?
::::::Image/File-Class? [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 11:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
:::::::{{tlx|Image-Class}} - 19,612
:::::::{{tlx|File-Class}} - 19,854 − 19,612 = 242
:::::::I think it's obvious which are the new kids on the block <
::::::::Interesting, I was expecting Image-Clas to be much lower than that. [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 17:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
:Ok, I'm going to start doing this. It's a complicated operation, and one that's reasonably easy to revert if consensus swings against it. But it looks like there is general support for removing ''at least'' Redirect-Class. Any further comments still welcome, naturally.
::So, which ones are going? Are Template and Category going to stay, because they fit into the group of classes that can be automatically assigned from the namespace.
:::Right now I'm only doing Redirect-Class. Template and Category are by far the most used of the non-article classes; they'll be the last to go anywhere. It's certainly something we need to look at more closely though.
I am skeptical towards the changes made today by Happy-melon with respect to Redirect-class pages (see also [[User_talk:Happy-melon#Redirecting_talk_pages_with_content|this discussion]]). I do agree with the perception that this class is being put to use by very few projects, but then again, a lot of projects aren't very concerned with assessments at all. I basically don't see the need for any intervention at this time. I think this particular class should be simply left alone for now. However, I wouldn't mind the transition from the extended quality scale to an opt-in scheme where this class would have to be added separately. Because we should expect a reasonably long acclimatization period for this class, I suggest we revert Happy-melon's changes made today and re-evaluate the situation in one year at the earliest, unless events make an earlier discussion appropriate. If we make a policy decision on this now, I fear that will be a premature one and we stunt this structure's natural development potential. __[[User:Meco|meco]] ([[User talk:Meco|talk]]) 22:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
:I don't think you fully understand what has been done here. You say you support a "transition to an opt-in system": this is ''exactly'' what is being undertaken. Today I have gone through and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Happy-melon&namespace=10&year=&month=-1 'opted in'] around fourty projects that clearly make use of the Redirect-Class assessment; this is in addition to those projects who had previously implemented custom masks. This morning there were 3,600 pages in [[:Category:WPBannerMeta templates using obscure class values]]; I manually redirected or reassessed less than [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=226&contribs=user&target=Happy-melon&namespace=1 220] of them; the remaining 3,380 remain as Redirect-Class. The only cases where I altered the talk pages were where it was abundantly clear from the population of the relevant "Redirect-Class Foo articles" category (often just a single article) that it was a pure accident, a result of a passing editor reasessing all the banners on a page with no thought for whether the class was actually being used. There are over ten thousand articles tagged as Redirect-Class: if you thought that this is a move against the classification itself, you are simply mistaken. This is purely a process to transform Redirect-Class into the opt-in assessment that you suggest, and also to clear up a mess that, by forcing all projects to adopt the assessment whether they wanted to or not, the banner has perpetuated.
Does [[Template:WPBannerMeta/class]] need changing now to remove the Redirect code? -- [[User:WOSlinker|WOSlinker]] ([[User talk:WOSlinker|talk]]) 11:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
:I left it overnight to see if any new pages dropped out of the woodwork, but yes, removing the class is now just as easy as removing the line from /class, which I've now done. Mission accomplished.
::Right, now that that part is done, what about all the empty [[User:WOSlinker/Sandbox3|categories]]? Should they just be [[WP:CSD|CSD]] or does it need a [[WP:CFD|CFD]]? -- [[User:WOSlinker|WOSlinker]] ([[User talk:WOSlinker|talk]]) 16:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
:::They'll become elegible for [[WP:CSD#C1]] in four days, or they're arguably elegible for G8 now as being "populated by a deleted or retargeted template". There's no rush, but equally no need for a CfD. We can keep checking that list to see if any projects start using the category again, and in a few days go through and delete the ones that are still empty.
::::I'd urge caution in using [[WP:CSD]] for these. There are those who would delete them again after a project later recreates them if they were previously deleted with a CSD log entry. I'm also concerned some editors may take this as a valid reason to begin flagging all empty project assessment/rating categories for speedy deletion. [[User:Tothwolf|Tothwolf]] ([[User talk:Tothwolf|talk]]) 21:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
:::::Neither CSD criterion is appropriate for 'active' assessment categories: C1 includes an explicit exclusion for ''"project categories that by their nature may become empty on occasion"'', G8 explicitly names only ''"categories populated by deleted or retargetted templates"''. If a category ''can'' be filled by a template, then it cannot be CSD'd. G4 (recreation of deleted material) does not apply to speedy deletions. Anyone who acts as you claim would be acting in violation of the [[WP:DPOL|deletion policy]] and should be treated accordingly.
::::::I would hold one a while before starting deletion of these categories, until the projects that were using them have had a chance to respond to the change. ([[User:TimothyRias|TimothyRias]] ([[User talk:TimothyRias|talk]]) 11:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC))
:::::::Well if I did my job properly on Saturday the projects that were using them should ''still'' be using them. The projects that weren't but had a few articles accidentally drop into them are the ones we're looking at <
::::::::Well, WP Physics was (sort of) using these cats. "Sort of" meaning that we had a somewhat populated "Redirect-Class physics articles" category, that nobody had really got around to looking at. I only noticed today, that the numbers in some of our article overview where off. (we suddenly had a lot more redirects with NA importance then our total number of redirects.) In the mean time, I have start a discussion on the project page if we really need these cats, which can take a while since the projects policy page doesn't really get that much traffic. ([[User:TimothyRias|TimothyRias]] ([[User talk:TimothyRias|talk]]) 14:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC))
::::::I've still seen it done. I uncovered a number of articles in the [[WP:WPIRC]] scope that had been speedy deleted again (originally A1, A7, A9, etc) after they were recreated years later by a different editor. Some of them I intend to have restored but I just lack the time to deal with everything by myself. [[User:Tothwolf|Tothwolf]] ([[User talk:Tothwolf|talk]]) 01:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
:I have now deleted all the Redirect-Class categories that were still empty, some [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&dir=prev&offset=20090409112452&limit=234&user=Happy-melon 234] in all.
===Default behaviour for Redirect-class now===
Now that support for redirect-class has been removed by default, I would suggest that a rating of Redirect-Class results in an NA classification. Any such instance would not be on an article and so it would not seem to make sense for it to go into the Unassessed category. This may seem like an anomaly, but it is exactly the way that we currently treat Template-Class and Portal-Class with banners that are not using the full quality scale. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 11:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
:Obviously, I disagree, although I'm open to persuasion. Having decided to 'unsupport' Redirect-Class, we should do the job properly, not continue to 'half support' it by auto-assigning it NA-Class. That would give the impression to editors who do 'hit-and-run' assessments that that is what the WikiProject in question wants done with their redirects, when in fact it's quite likely that the project doesn't want to deal with redirects at all. I think that handling Redirect-Class should be left entirely up to the individual projects, through the use of custom masks.
::I think it should be quite obvious that a project is not using Redirect-Class when the banner comes up with NA-Class instead. But I don't think you can try to stop people tagging redirect talk pages - a determined editor could always use the NA-Class to tag it anyway. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 11:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
:::That's true, but what I meant is that it gives the impression that "WikiProject X wants any redirects under its scope to be classified as NA-Class", when that might not be the situation at all. Naturally if an editor is determined to assess the redirect as something, we can't stop them marking it as NA, but at least we're not giving the impression that that's what the project wants when that might not be the case.
::::But at the moment, they are going into Unassessed which may not be what the project wants either ... we should choose the more common-sense approach. And why do we classify templates as NA-Class if a project has chosen not to use the FQS? By your logic, they should be unassessed as well. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 12:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
:::::I do take your point, another situation in which FQS is somewhat confused. Although Template-Class, Category-Class, etc, ''are'' different in being able to be assigned automatically by namespace. I think PC78 is right in that we need to completely reevaluate the way we do QS and FQS.
::::::Well let's see what others think. For me, the current behaviour is completely illogical. It's not the same situation for Future- and Current- class because they are likely to be articles and so "Unassessed" seems appropriate for them. But it would be the same if ever Project- or Disambig- class were ever scrapped. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 19:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Can I have some input from others on this please? I'm still not happy with the current situation. For example, today I converted [[Template:WikiProject Hinduism]]. I noticed there were a few redirects which had been tagged (for example [[Talk:Panchamukha Hanuman]]), but not enough to warrant a custom class mask in my opinion. However I would be much happier if those were classed as NA rather than Unassessed where it will waste the time of an editor assessing for the project in the future. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 12:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
:Both sides make compelling arguments. It seems that if redirect-class is completely unsupported, resulting in "unassessed", we'll end up with a bunch of time needed for editors to go over all these newly unassesssed articles, and have to figure out what to do with them. Of those, some will just remove the banner entirely, but some will want to keep the banner on, in order to keep them in the categories, in which case they'll have to go and manually tag them as NA-class anyway. The software engineer in me wants to provide some sort of parameter or hook to allow projects to choose which approach to take, but we still have to decide on a sensible default... Sigh. Personally, I'm slightly leaning towards having redirect go into NA rather than Unassessed, but I'm open to changing my mind if I see a compelling reason I wasn't aware of.
::"''some sort of parameter or hook to allow projects to choose which approach to take''"... <cough>custom mask</cough>... <
:::Correct - the method exists for projects to control entirely what they want to happen. This question is about how we deal with projects that have not chosen. As H-M said, we do not particularly want to impose something on a project which they might not want, but unless we ask them individually (probably desirable for active WikiProjects, but unnecessarily inefficient for less active ones) we have to make an educated guess. The one that makes sense to me is to treat them differently from Cheesecake-Class: use the information we have (i.e. it's not an article) and use the most suitable class that the project is using (NA-Class). — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 17:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
| |||