Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) from Module talk:WikiProject banner) (bot |
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) from Module talk:WikiProject banner) (bot |
||
Line 25:
Adding this here incase anyone has the time. [[Template:WikiAfrica/Share Your Knowledge]] (and the templates that use it such as [[Template:WikiAfrica/Artgate]]) should be converted to use the WP banner system. [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 11:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
== Update Module:WikiProject banner/templatepage to move the class and listas parameters ==
In the autodoc section of [[Module:WikiProject banner/templatepage]], the {{para|class}} and {{para|listas}} values should be removed and shown in the examples in use inside the WikiProject banner shell.
Convert:
<syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext">
Basic usage
Place this on the talk page of relevant articles:
{{WikiProject Skyscrapers |class= |importance= }}
</syntaxhighlight>
to:
<syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext">
Basic usage
Place this on the talk page of relevant articles:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=|
{{WikiProject Skyscrapers|importance=}}
}}
</syntaxhighlight>
and
<syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext">
Full usage
It is usual to remove any unused parameters from the template call.
{{WikiProject Skyscrapers |category= |listas= |class= |importance= |attention= |needs-infobox= |unref= |Imageneeded= }}
</syntaxhighlight>
to:
<syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext">
Full usage
It is usual to remove any unused parameters from the template call.
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=|listas=|
{{WikiProject Skyscrapers|importance= |attention= |needs-infobox= |unref= |Imageneeded= |category= }}
}}
</syntaxhighlight>
here also move {{para|category}} to the end as it's the least important parameter. [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 10:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:Looks good. Are you happy to make those changes to the code? — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 08:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::I'm not touching the code anymore. [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 08:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::How's that looking now? — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 23:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Looks good. In the "deprecated" section, maybe also add the "this parameter should be used with the banner shell template" to the class parameter. [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 10:11, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
== Override importance to NA on non-articles ==
There is a suggestion ([[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BaranBOT 6|link]]) that importance ratings e.g. {{para|importance|mid}} should be ignored on non-articles, like redirects. At the moment the module will automatically apply NA-importance to these pages if no importance is specified, but it will not override a specified importance. What do people think? — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 07:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
:The suggestion makes sense, and overridden pages can be filtered into {{cat|Pages with conflicting importance ratings}}. As long as any WikiProjects that wish to use their own importance scheme can use a custom importance mask, I don't see a problem. I would just be careful about not emptying that category too quickly, to give WikiProjects that do importance-rate #Rs, cats, templates, etc., time to make their own masks. <b>~</b> <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">[[User:Tom.Reding|Tom.Reding]] ([[User talk:Tom.Reding|talk]] ⋅[[WP:DGAF|dgaf]])</span> 11:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
::If the rating is ignored, then it doesn't create a conflict. For example if you type {{para|class|C}} on a redirect, then that will be ignored and it will still be classified as a redirect, and it does not trigger the conflicting ratings category. Should that be the same for ignored importance ratings? — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 11:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
:::If any and all WikiProjects that currently use importance on non-articles (idk what that # is) have their importance masks in place, then sure, importance ratings can be ignored. <b>~</b> <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">[[User:Tom.Reding|Tom.Reding]] ([[User talk:Tom.Reding|talk]] ⋅[[WP:DGAF|dgaf]])</span> 12:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
:Are there any projects that currently categorize their redirects by importance? [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 12:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
::None intentionally, as far as I am aware. The only ones I have encountered have been left over from a move or merge of a page. If we did this, it would affect all non-articles, i.e. disambiguation pages, templates, portals, etc. would all get NA-importance automatically. So we should consider projects like [[Template:WikiProject Templates]], [[Template:WikiProject Portals]], etc. which may be tracking the importance of these pages. If they are, then a custom importance mask can be used — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 13:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
:::What is a custom importance mask? · · · [[User:Pbsouthwood|Peter Southwood]] [[User talk:Pbsouthwood|<sup>(talk)</sup>]]: 04:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
::Yes, WikiProject Underwater diving classifies redirects with the potential to become full articles with the importance the full article would have, thereby giving anyone who might be considering converting to a full article some idea of whether it would be worth the effort. · · · [[User:Pbsouthwood|Peter Southwood]] [[User talk:Pbsouthwood|<sup>(talk)</sup>]]: 04:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
If we are going to do this, then we need the check all possible projects which are tracking non-articles by importance. If there are any, then they need to be switched to a custom importance mask. I will add candidates to check to the table below — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 08:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
{| class="wikitable"
!Project!!Notes
|-
|[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Flag Template|WikiProject Flag Template]]|| Does not have any categories
|-
|[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Templates|WikiProject Templates]]||Does not have any categories
|-
|[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Inline Templates|WikiProject Inline Templates]]||[[:Category:WikiProject Inline Templates pages]] does not use sub-categories
|-
|[[Wikipedia:WikiProject template sharing|WikiProject template sharing]]|| Dead project
|-
|[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation|WikiProject Disambiguation]]|| [[:Category:WikiProject Disambiguation pages]] does not use sub-categories
|-
|[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Redirect|WikiProject Redirect]]|| [[:Category:WikiProject Redirect pages]] does not use importance sub-categories
|-
|[[Wikipedia:WikiProject English Numeral Royalty Redirect|WikiProject English Numeral Royalty Redirect]]|| Dead project
|-
|[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals|WikiProject Portals]]|| [[:Category:Portal pages by importance]]. Uses custom code, should not be affected.
|-
|[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories|WikiProject Categories]]|| [[:Category:WikiProject Categories pages]] does not use its own importance sub-categories
|-
|[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Category sorting|WikiProject Category sorting]]|| Defunct
|-
|[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essays|WikiProject Wikipedia essays]]|| [[:Category:Wikipedia essays articles by importance]]. Already using custom mask.
|-
|[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Policy and Guidelines|WikiProject Policy and Guidelines]]|| Defunct
|-
|[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media|WikiProject Images and Media]]|| [[:Category:WikiProject Images and Media]] does not use importance sub-categories
|-
|[[Wikipedia:WikiProject User Help|WikiProject User Help]]|| Defunct
|-
|[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts|WikiProject Abandoned Drafts]]|| [[:Category:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts]] does not use importance sub-categories
|-
|[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Manual of Style|WikiProject Manual of Style]]|| Defunct
|-
|[[Wikipedia:Help Project|Help Project]]|| [[:Category:Help articles by importance]] has sub categories
|}
Okay so we can do this - will look at coding it next week. It will be an opportunity to move away from using {{tl|importance mask}} and use a Lua version instead — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 13:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
:Proposed code in sandbox — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 14:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
:Just to confirm. The new version will force NA importance on any non-article, but it will still permit NA to be used on an article. Is this correct? Would it be better to prohibit NA in article space, in which case NA would resolve to Unknown? — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 12:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
::NA on an article sounds strange. I'd like to see an actual usage where one would set this. It would seem that if an article is NA then it's pretty much not notable for inclusion in Wikipedia (or that the project shouldn't have tagged it). Regarding the other namespaces, any project that wants to give importance to non-articles should have a custom mask? [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 09:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
:::I tend to agree. NA on an article would not make much sense, and if any project wanted to do that, they should set up a custom mask. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 09:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
=== NA importance (break) ===
Pages like [[List of storms named Ningning]] which is a set index article, are often assessed with NA-importance. These will become unknown importance if we change this. Is that a problem? — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 21:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
:Set index pages should probably be treated like disambiguation pages, unless some projects are actually setting different importance to them. [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 22:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
::Couldn't agree more. I have long argued that set index articles should be classified as disambiguation pages, because that is what 99% of them are. There may be a few real SIAs with actual content, but most are just a collection of links. The easiest way to do this, is make an edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Surname/doc&diff=prev&oldid=1187801648 like this], which would convert all the list articles on surnames into disambiguation pages in one swoop. But as you can see I was reverted back in 2023, and many kB of discussion ensued which did not reach a satisfactory conclusion — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 10:42, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Another option is to have a list like [[Module:Disambiguation/templates]] for [[:Category:Set index article templates]] so the module can detect them. [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 10:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
::::We already have that list and can detect them. But the problem is that set index articles are supposed to be '''articles''' and shouldn't be getting NA importance — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 11:05, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::Well in that case, an article shouldn't get NA importance and should get categorized as unknown (though again, I personally think they should be detected as set index and set to NA). [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 11:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::If we make this change I anticipate some queries/complaints along the lines of "why can't I set NA importance for this set index article?" I think we are taking the reasonable and appropriate action, but the mis-classification of SIAs continues to cause problems ... To reduce confusion, let's keep the possibility of assessing articles with NA-importance for now. If the SIA/disambig issue is ever sorted properly, we can revisit this — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 14:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
{{done}} — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 21:57, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
Hang on a bit here. WikiProject Underwater diving uses importance on redirects to indicate which could/should reasonably be converted to full articles some day, and how important the ''topic'' is to the project. Are you classifying redirects as non-articles? How will we visibly indicate which redirects are potentially articles and which are not? · · · [[User:Pbsouthwood|Peter Southwood]] [[User talk:Pbsouthwood|<sup>(talk)</sup>]]: 03:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
:Yes, all redirects are classified as non-articles. We can set up a custom importance mask for your project, and you can continue to assess importance in any way you wish — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 07:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
::That seems an entirely reasonable option, thanks for your response. My template coding skills are rudimentary, so I may have to come bck with some questions about how it works if I don't manage to get it to do what is needed. Cheers · · · [[User:Pbsouthwood|Peter Southwood]] [[User talk:Pbsouthwood|<sup>(talk)</sup>]]: 14:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
:::It's already done. So you won't need to edit it, unless you want to make any other changes — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 15:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Yes, thanks, I understand, and don't expect any problems or need for changes, but you never know... · · · [[User:Pbsouthwood|Peter Southwood]] [[User talk:Pbsouthwood|<sup>(talk)</sup>]]: 15:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
:{{done}} at [[Template:WikiProject Underwater diving/importance]]. This should now be handling importance the same way it was before — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 08:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
It looks like the change has caused some issues with [[WP:RATER]], in that it is now impossible for the script to assign values to importance other than NA to all articles, not just set index and redirects (see [[User talk:Evad37/rater.js#It is no longer possible to assign an importance to a redirect|talk page discussion there]]). [[User:Reconrabbit|<span style="color:#6BAD2D">Recon</span>]][[User talk:Reconrabbit|<span style="color:#2F3833">rabbit</span>]] 17:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
:Articles should not be given NA. If it's NA for your project, then your project shouldn't tag that page. [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 17:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
::That's not what they are saying. They are saying that Rater will only allow them to rate NA. I can confirm that I am seeing this too, but need to look into why this might be — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 20:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
:The change to this module does seem to have mucked up rater. I have no idea why, because the module is working just fine. But perhaps we should consider a partial revert to allow time for @[[User:Evad37|Evad37]] to look into this and apply a fix — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 10:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
::That seems a prudent response, Rater is quite heavily used and there in no great urgency for this change, Cheers, · · · [[User:Pbsouthwood|Peter Southwood]] [[User talk:Pbsouthwood|<sup>(talk)</sup>]]: 12:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
:::I have reverted the change to the importance mask (although I still can't think of any way this could have an impact). Please let me know if you notice an improvement to rater? — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 17:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
::::It allows an importance to be allocated to a redirect for Wikiproject underwater diving, so OK on that count. · · · [[User:Pbsouthwood|Peter Southwood]] [[User talk:Pbsouthwood|<sup>(talk)</sup>]]: 05:29, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
:I'm just going to toss in a general comment that supports allowing projects to tag the importance of Drafts and Redirects. In the former situation, I will find drafts from the New Article reports and tag them appropriately with all of the desired details. Then when someone reviews it, that editor only has to assign a quality rating. I find that well-meaning people don't always know what importance to assign when they aren't active members of a project, and I'll have to go tweak the rating later. Also, the importance rating can serve as an indicator of which drafts should get attention to push them across the finish line as articles.
:As for redirects, it's similar. Some redirects have possibilities for expansion into future articles, and if we can rate them by importance now, it gives some indication on which should be prioritized over others. Not every project may see the utility in this, but some will. Removing this possibility across the board disallows projects to use this potential tool. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">'''[[User:Imzadi1979|<span style="color:white;">Imzadi 1979</span>]] [[User talk:Imzadi1979|<span style="color:white;"><big>→</big></span>]]'''</span> 18:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
::I agree on both counts, but this tends to be different for different projects. Some do not allocate an importance at all, others find it a useful tool. I would suggest that only non-articles that have the potential to become articles can usefully be allocated an importance, and all others should probably be rated as NA, while all actual articles should have a non-NA rating if the project allocates importance. If the project does not allocate importance, then no importance should be the only and automatic rating, and no options are needed. · · · [[User:Pbsouthwood|Peter Southwood]] [[User talk:Pbsouthwood|<sup>(talk)</sup>]]: 04:08, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
::Importance for drafts and redirects (and userspace drafts?) sounds reasonable for the reasons stated. I guess it depends on how many projects are actually doing this. If it's common, then we should support this as standard. It it's niche, then those projects can easily use a custom mask — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 17:29, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
::We now have the green light to reimplement this change. So we need to decide whether to allow importance ratings for certain non-articles, e.g. redirects and drafts, or treat all non-articles as NA. Does anyone else have any opinions on this, or should we try [[WT:COUNCIL]]? — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 22:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
===NA importance (break 2)===
Just to make sure that everyone is board with this change, the table below clarifies the proposed output in different scenarios, as I understand it — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 09:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
:looks ok to me. · · · [[User:Pbsouthwood|Peter Southwood]] [[User talk:Pbsouthwood|<sup>(talk)</sup>]]: 13:01, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
::This is now coded on the sandbox — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 12:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
::{{done}}. Diving should now be able to go back to the standard importance mask (unless there is anything else non-standard that you want to do) — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 20:31, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Does that require any action from us? · · · [[User:Pbsouthwood|Peter Southwood]] [[User talk:Pbsouthwood|<sup>(talk)</sup>]]: 05:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
{| class="wikitable"
!Page type
!Valid input, e.g. "mid"
!Invalid/blank input
!Input "na"
|-
!Articles
|Mid
|Unknown
|NA{{efn|For the purpose [[WP:SIA|SIAs]], it will still be possible to rate articles as NA importance, for now.}}
|-
!Redirects & drafts
|Mid{{efn|Redirects and drafts are potential articles, so projects may wish to rate them by importance.}}
|NA
|NA
|-
!All other pages
|NA
|NA
|NA
|}
{{Notelist-talk}}
=== Follow up ===
I noticed that on [[Draft talk:Quantum Coupling Hypothesis]] the importance is set to low, but this is being ignored and they are getting NA-importance. This suggests that the code approved above is not working correctly — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 20:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
:Apparently this was never implemented properly for drafts. I only tested it on redirects! Now fixed on the sandbox. This means that the page type will be displayed on the banner. Which is better: draft or draft article?
:*'''Current:''' This page is within the scope of WikiProject Physics ...
:*'''Option 1:''' This draft article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics ...
:*'''Option 2:''' This draft is within the scope of WikiProject Physics ...
:— Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 20:04, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
::I would go for option 1 first, 2 second, without any strong feelings about the choice. Both are better than current. · · · [[User:Pbsouthwood|Peter Southwood]] [[User talk:Pbsouthwood|<sup>(talk)</sup>]]: 11:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Thanks Peter. I've gone with option 2 for now because that matches what the banner shell template uses, but don't really mind either wy. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 12:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
| |||