Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Java/Things you can do/to do: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 22:29, 9 December 2009

Revision as of 22:53, 9 December 2009

Line 34:

::Comment about 5) For me, in creating the Java WikiProject, there was to be a balance between 'bringing focus to the bettering of Java-related content on Wikipedia' AND 'the overhead of maintaining such a project'. The balance I found, apart from bringing up the Java Portal from scratch, was that 1) we would be a descendent project of WikiProject Computing (not a task force) 2) we would have our own 'banner' linking to the Java Project and the Java Portal and 3) we would stick to the WP1.0 stats management (the Quality-by-Importance matrix). Nothing original so far. Then, comes the decision of having, or not having, a specific Importance rating and/or a specific Quality rating (for Java-related articles) by the Java project. I therefore examined several other projects related or not to computing, and saw that they run the whole gamut in between having no specific ratings (for example, the Quebec project VS the Canada project) to having all specific ratings (for example, the Linux project VS the Computing project). I did think having Importance ratings was practical because that's a management issue for prioritizing articles and their rewriting. There remains the infamous Quality ratings. As I understand it, Quality rating is an editorial issue of Wikipedia, and in fact I never saw (so far) 2 projects giving a different Class. When they do, these differences get reconciled through inter-project discussions. By having NO specific 'class' parameter, the Java WikiProject can somewhat shortcut the 'paperwork' as was explained to me by my adopter SriMesh. Also, we would not need to invoke a bot from time to time to assess the articles from other project banners. And we do not have to constantly check if the other Computing projects attempt to change the rating over our head. So the problem becomes more simple: how to generate the relevant 'Java articles by quality' category in an article's talk page from the project banner. One way I foresaw is explained above. It means putting both the Computing banner and the Java banner, both keeping their own independant meaning and responsibilities. If you take a look at [[Talk:J2EE_application]] that's what I would want, the Quality rating for Java taken from Computing (I'm not engaging the whole team in saying so though). The only problem is the java-importance parameter on the Computing banner which is necessary there (if not there, the templates will generate an extra Unknown-importance Java articles category) but is redundant in that case; I don't know how to fix that in the Computing project template (putting the java-importance as an option) but I'm sure someone does... If somebody has a better method, that's great, but please explain it here before doing any work, so that the team can choose which way to go...<br/>-- [[User:Alainr345|<span style="display:inline-block; position:relative; top:20px;"><font face="Times" color="#4590ff" size="2"><u><i>&nbsp;Alain&nbsp; R 3 4 5&nbsp;</i></u><br/><font color="#ffb000">^{Techno-Wiki-Geek}</font></font></span>]] 21:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)<br/><br/>

:::I know what you are trying to do and {{tl|WPBannerMeta}} and the WP1.0 stats bot doesn't work like that. {{tl|WikiProject Computing}}'s TF code for {{para|java}} will eventually go away and can't be depended on either (I just added it for transitional purposes since I saw many articles trying to use {{para|java}} with {{tl|WikiProject Computing}}. --[[User:Tothwolf|Tothwolf]] ([[User talk:Tothwolf|talk]]) 21:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
:::I've put in the bot request [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xenobot_Mk_V/requests&diff=prev&oldid=330740324] to get everything auto-assessed using the existing banners and stub templates. Once that is done we can weed out and re-tag articles that aren't within the project's scope (I noticed a few related to DVD manufacturers for example). After {{cl|Java articles by quality}} is fully populated, [[User:WP 1.0 bot]] will re-generate [[Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Java articles by quality statistics]]. --[[User:Tothwolf|Tothwolf]] ([[User talk:Tothwolf|talk]]) 22:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

::::The thing about project independance is certainly a relevant argument. But I'm not sure you are talking about TF hooks in terms of your own taste or of a WP1.0 policy change... Could you flesh out your idea please. (Note: Auto-assessing before putting the Compu-stub tag in untagged articles only means we'll have to request the bot a second time, but if you like it, why not!)<br/>-- [[User:Alainr345|<span style="display:inline-block; position:relative; top:20px;"><font face="Times" color="#4590ff" size="2"><u><i>&nbsp;Alain&nbsp; R 3 4 5&nbsp;</i></u><br/><font color="#ffb000">^{Techno-Wiki-Geek}</font></font></span>]] 22:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)<br/><br/>

:::::If we are talking about the TF stuff in {{tl|WikiProject Computing}}, it has become unmaintainable and people are not even bothering to use the parameters for {{tl|WikiProject Computing}} much of the time now. All of the WikiProjects that have TF options already have their own banners and most have been slowing switching back to them. In the not too distant future I'll look into getting a bot to finish the job and clean up the bulk of what is left. It will be trivial to have a bot add {{tl|WikiProject Computing}} to articles that already have other banners as well.<br />As for {{tl|WikiProject Java}}, there are already stub templates on many articles. We will likely have to request several bot runs for the initial stuff anyway and that is pretty normal.<br />In my experience assessing articles doesn't add too much overhead and it won't require AWB or anything fancy. Keeping banner templates standardised and using normal options means people who assess for one project will usually assess for the other projects that have banners present since {{para|class}} will be the same for all banners and is usually the only option that needs to change once the assessment templates are established. Unlike the {{para|importance}} scale, which varies between individual projects, there is a standard scale for assessing articles for {{para|class}}. See [[Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment]], [[Template:Grading scheme]], and [[Template:Importance scheme]] for more information on the scales. --[[User:Tothwolf|Tothwolf]] ([[User talk:Tothwolf|talk]]) 22:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)