Content deleted Content added
MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 thread(s) from Template talk:WPBannerMeta. |
MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 thread(s) from Template talk:WPBannerMeta. (ARCHIVE FULL) |
||
Line 465:
:'''To Martin''': sorry to be such a pain with the Bottom-class, which is indeed the class why we have all these problems in the first place. I do not want to give you more work, you probably have much more important features to develop. So maybe if I just revert to the former code, however inelegant, it will work correctly ?
: [[User:SyG|SyG]] ([[User talk:SyG|talk]]) 16:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
== 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? <font color="forestgreen">[[User:Happy-melon|'''Happy''']]</font>‑<font color="darkorange">[[User talk:Happy-melon|'''melon''']]</font> 18:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
:'''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)
:I think it would be better if more projects ''did'' keep track of redirects but most probably don't even know how to use them efficiently. Categorized and subtopic redirects in particular are often not updated and maintained properly when editors make major changes to the articles that they redirect to. For [[WP:WPIRC]], I've sifted out most of the redirects and placed them on a project [[Wikipedia:WikiProject IRC/Redirects|subpage]] but I've not yet reworked all the article redirects and tagged them. In terms of numbers, for this project, there probably are as many redirects as there are actual articles. [[User:Tothwolf|Tothwolf]] ([[User talk:Tothwolf|talk]]) 23:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
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. <font color="forestgreen">[[User:Happy-melon|'''Happy''']]</font>‑<font color="darkorange">[[User talk:Happy-melon|'''melon''']]</font> 09:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
::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. <font color="forestgreen">[[User:Happy-melon|'''Happy''']]</font>‑<font color="darkorange">[[User talk:Happy-melon|'''melon''']]</font> 14:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
::::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. <font color="forestgreen">[[User:Happy-melon|'''Happy''']]</font>‑<font color="darkorange">[[User talk:Happy-melon|'''melon''']]</font> 17:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
:::::{{tlx|Disambig-Class}} - 15,125 distinct pages.
:::::{{tlx|Template-Class}} - 25,352 pages
:::::{{tlx|Category-Class}} - 95,367
:::::{{tlx|Project-Class}} - 1,516
:::::{{tlx|Portal-Class}} - 3,336
:::::Any more people want? <font color="forestgreen">[[User:Happy-melon|'''Happy''']]</font>‑<font color="darkorange">[[User talk:Happy-melon|'''melon''']]</font> 20:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
::::::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 <tt>:D</tt> <font color="forestgreen">[[User:Happy-melon|'''Happy''']]</font>‑<font color="darkorange">[[User talk:Happy-melon|'''melon''']]</font> 17:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
::::::::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. <font color="forestgreen">[[User:Happy-melon|'''Happy''']]</font>‑<font color="darkorange">[[User talk:Happy-melon|'''melon''']]</font> 12:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
::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. <font color="red">[[User:DeFaultRyan|'''De''']]</font><font color="green">[[User Talk:DeFaultRyan|'''Fault''']]</font><font color="blue">[[Special:Contributions/DeFaultRyan|'''Ryan''']]</font> 18:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
:::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. <font color="forestgreen">[[User:Happy-melon|'''Happy''']]</font>‑<font color="darkorange">[[User talk:Happy-melon|'''melon''']]</font> 19:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
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. <font color="forestgreen">[[User:Happy-melon|'''Happy''']]</font>‑<font color="darkorange">[[User talk:Happy-melon|'''melon''']]</font> 23:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
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. <font color="forestgreen">[[User:Happy-melon|'''Happy''']]</font>‑<font color="darkorange">[[User talk:Happy-melon|'''melon''']]</font> 16:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
::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. <font color="forestgreen">[[User:Happy-melon|'''Happy''']]</font>‑<font color="darkorange">[[User talk:Happy-melon|'''melon''']]</font> 16:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
::::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. <font color="forestgreen">[[User:Happy-melon|'''Happy''']]</font>‑<font color="darkorange">[[User talk:Happy-melon|'''melon''']]</font> 11:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
::::::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 <tt>:D</tt>. That said, I agree with you that there is no rush. Although if a project doesn't even ''notice'' that the category has been deprecated, then that doesn't really encourage me to think they were using it in the first place... <font color="forestgreen">[[User:Happy-melon|'''Happy''']]</font>‑<font color="darkorange">[[User talk:Happy-melon|'''melon''']]</font> 11:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
::::::::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. <font color="forestgreen">[[User:Happy-melon|'''Happy''']]</font>‑<font color="darkorange">[[User talk:Happy-melon|'''melon''']]</font> 20:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
===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. <font color="forestgreen">[[User:Happy-melon|'''Happy''']]</font>‑<font color="darkorange">[[User talk:Happy-melon|'''melon''']]</font> 11:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
::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. <font color="forestgreen">[[User:Happy-melon|'''Happy''']]</font>‑<font color="darkorange">[[User talk:Happy-melon|'''melon''']]</font> 11:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
::::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. <font color="forestgreen">[[User:Happy-melon|'''Happy''']]</font>‑<font color="darkorange">[[User talk:Happy-melon|'''melon''']]</font> 13:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
::::::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. <font color="red">[[User:DeFaultRyan|'''De''']]</font><font color="green">[[User Talk:DeFaultRyan|'''Fault''']]</font><font color="blue">[[Special:Contributions/DeFaultRyan|'''Ryan''']]</font> 15:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
::"''some sort of parameter or hook to allow projects to choose which approach to take''"... <cough>custom mask</cough>... <tt>:D</tt> <font color="forestgreen">[[User:Happy-melon|'''Happy''']]</font>‑<font color="darkorange">[[User talk:Happy-melon|'''melon''']]</font> 15:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
:::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)
Before MiszaBot gets this I'd like to say that I'm still looking for comments to settle this one way or the other. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 15:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
: ... — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 20:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
:: ... — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 14:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
| |||