Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
m Obsolete HTML tags "tt" swapped out for "samp". See Project Lint |
||
Line 15:
::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. [[User:Happy-melon|<b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>]]‑[[User talk:Happy-melon|<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b>]] 13:16, 9 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. [[User:Happy-melon|<b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>]]‑[[User talk:Happy-melon|<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b>]] 15:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
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'. [[User:Happy-melon|<b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>]]‑[[User talk:Happy-melon|<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b>]] 10:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
::::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 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! [[User:Happy-melon|<b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>]]‑[[User talk:Happy-melon|<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b>]] 09:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 165:
:::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. [[User:Happy-melon|<b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>]]‑[[User talk:Happy-melon|<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b>]] 09:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
::::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 186:
::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. [[User:Happy-melon|<b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>]]‑[[User talk:Happy-melon|<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b>]] 13:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
:::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 240:
::{{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. [[User:Happy-melon|<b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>]]‑[[User talk:Happy-melon|<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b>]] 18:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
:::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|<span style="color:darkgreen;">日本穣</span>]]<sup>[[Help:Japanese|?]] · <small>[[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small></sup> 18:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
== [[:Template:WikiProject Economics]] ==
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 349:
::[[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 489:
:::::::{{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. [[User:Happy-melon|<b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>]]‑[[User talk:Happy-melon|<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b>]] 12:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 508:
:::::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. [[User:Happy-melon|<b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>]]‑[[User talk:Happy-melon|<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b>]] 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 <
::::::::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)
Line 525:
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. [[User:DeFaultRyan|<b style="color:red;">De</b>]][[User Talk:DeFaultRyan|<b style="color:green;">Fault</b>]][[Special:Contributions/DeFaultRyan|<b style="color:blue;">Ryan</b>]] 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>... <
:::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)
| |||