Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) from Module talk:WikiProject banner) (bot |
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) from Module talk:WikiProject banner) (bot |
||
Line 424:
:::I mean, I don't know why some of those pages have non-standard names, but for the ones that obviously do, the correct thing to do is rename them. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 19:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
:::Some are incorrect task forces that should be converted to use the main WikiProject template. Others can maybe be added to an exclude list (like [[Template:WikiProject C/C++]] and [[Template:WikiProject Hinduism/Shaktism]], though really per [[MOS:SLASH]] the name of the project should use "and" and as an added benefit, these probably won't be added to the category). [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 17:15, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
== usages of |BANNER_NAME= in talk pages ==
There should probably be some code added to catch usages of {{para|BANNER_NAME}} in talk pages so usages like [[Talk:Basshunter videography]] can be added to a category and fixed. [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 18:41, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
:Wow, never seen that before! There doesn't seem to be any banner template for Basshunter — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 21:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
::I am fairly certain there was at some point. [[WP:WikiProject Basshunter]] exists and is a redirect to a task force. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 00:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
:@[[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] I have had to revert a few of your changes ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:WikiProject_Syracuse,_New_York&diff=prev&oldid=1178229246 example]). The BANNER_NAME is needed for these wrappers because otherwise the template thinks it is being used incorrectly and gives warnings — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 10:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
::It {{em|is}} used incorrectly. It should be subst, as the template says it should. [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 10:07, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
:::Okay, but I don't like the warnings on the template. How does the current version of [[Template:WikiProject Syracuse, New York]] work? — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 10:18, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
::::I'm unclear what is special about these 5 templates that requires that, while [[Template:WikiProject American Old West]] and the others at [[:Category:WikiProject United States banner wrapper templates]] don't? Your edit re-added those templates to [[:Category:WikiProject banners with non-standard names]]. [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 10:23, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::My edit removed them from [[:Category:WikiProject banners with errors]] though :)) Your example uses includeonly, so I guess that is another valid approach. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 10:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
A few more banners you might be interested in cleaning up {{ul|Gonnym}}:
* [[Template:WikiProject Chronicles of Narnia task force]]
* [[Template:WikiProject U.S. Roads/U.S. Route 66 task force]]
* [[Template:WikiProject Palaeontology/Lobe-Fin taskforce]]
* [[Template:WikiProject Music/Music genres task force]]
— Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 17:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
:[[Template:WikiProject U.S. Roads]] uses a {{para|type}} system which I'm not familiar with and unclear if it works with the system (categories, pages, etc). [[Template:WikiProject Music/Music genres task force]] I'm not sure is fixable because there isn't a WikiProject Music template. [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 18:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
::{{ul|Imzadi1979}} has confirmed that you can use <code><nowiki>{{WikiProject U.S. Roads|type=US66}}</nowiki></code> in place of <code><nowiki>{{Template:WikiProject U.S. Roads/U.S. Route 66 task force}}</nowiki></code> but ''only'' for things directly related to the road and not gas stations, motels or museums, etc. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 21:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
:::So [[Talk:Summit Inn]] should still be tagged with the task force version? [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 03:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
::::That seems to be correct, although I don't understand the reason for the distinction — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 07:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
== Quality/importance intersection categories for task forces ==
I've added support in the sandbox for quality/importance intersection categories for separate taskforces via parameters of the form TF_n_QII. This will significantly reduce overheads for the few projects that use it. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 09:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
:I randomly noticed while looking at [[Talk:Golconda diamonds]] for other reasons that it shows two redlinked categories: "A-Class Telangana articles" and "A-Class Telangana articles of Top-importance". My understanding is that red-linked categories are generally frowned upon. I don't really know whether the above change caused these cats to appear, whether these red-linked categories are new to this page, or whether it is a problem, or what change(s) might fix it. Pinging {{U|Bearcat}} and {{U|Liz}}, who tend to know about categories. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 04:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
::Yes, those would have been caused by this change. Redlinked categories are indeed frowned upon, but are impossible to remove if they're template-generated except by either creating the category or reverting whatever template change generated it — so if the categories are desired, then somebody needs to create them right away, and if they're not, then whatever change caused them to happen has to be undone. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] ([[User talk:Bearcat|talk]]) 04:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
:::Well, when one makes use of a complex, categorizing template, one is accepting that one will create the categories it auto-generates. And a red internal maint. cat. is not a very real concern anyway; what we actually care about is readers being confronted with red content categories in the actual article. But seriously, part of the basic process of setting up and maintaining a wikiproject is creating the various class and importance categories used by the project banner to quietly sort articles for us, for maintenance purposes (even if a few of them may not seem personally important to some of the individuals doing the maintenance). <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 08:32, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
::::Actually, we very much ''do'' care about redlinked maintenance categories, because they're detected by the ''same'' redlinked category report that detects redlinked content categories — and even more importantly, that maintenance report has a hard size cap beyond which it will not detect any additional redlinked categories beyond that number, meaning that every redlinked maintenance category that fails to get treated the same as a redlinked content category pushes us that much closer and closer to being ''unable'' to detect redlinked ''content'' categories until the list is cleaned up, because each individual unresolved category gets us closer and closer to that size cap. So in theory it's not as important from a ''reader'' perspective, but in actual practice it ''is'' every bit as important from a ''how the tools we have to fix the problem actually work'' perspective, so redlinked maintenance categories absolutely ''do'' have to be taken every bit as seriously as the content kind.
::::Just as an example, the latest run of the redlinked category report features almost five times as many redlinked categories as usual — 441 redlinked categories where there should be less than 100, with the difference accounted for almost entirely by template-generated quality-importance crosscat maintenance categories likely caused by the changes that inspired this discussion — but 441 categories means that if this continues, we will trip that size cap in just 11 more runs of that report if they aren't all cleaned up now. It runs every three days, which means that every category on it has to be cleaned up immediately, with absolutely no category ever carrying over to the next new run because it failed to be resolved within three days of its first appearance. So maintenance categories aren't of lesser importance than content categories are when it comes to resolving the report.
::::In truth, I have deep doubts that ''any'' categories of the quality-x-importance type are necessary ''at all'', but it's beyond my pay grade to mount any sort of campaign to have them kiboshed across the board — but at the very least, there needs to be significantly more effort made to make them ''stop'' flinging 441 categories of redlinked crap at ''my'' face. If they're genuinely desired, then there needs to be a mechanism in place to make sure that either they get automatically created the moment they're needed or they just don't happen in the first place, because it's not my responsibility to put up with repeatedly having to fix hundreds of these over and over again. These need to ''stop'' becoming WantedCategories problems that land on ''my'' plate to deal with. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] ([[User talk:Bearcat|talk]]) 17:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::You sound very upset about this - maybe keep things in perspective? I have already proposed a solution to this issue (below). I will deploy it tomorrow. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 20:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
::Not guilty! To check, I restored an old version into the sandbox and the same red categories appear on [[Talk:Golconda diamonds]]. What happened yesterday is someone [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Golconda_diamonds&diff=prev&oldid=1178390861 changed its rating] to A-class, and obviously the A-class categories do not exist. We could (a) revert the change in rating (because I don't think it went through any kind of A-class review, (b) create the required categories, (c) disable the categories for WikiProject Telangana, and/or (d) add some code to check whether the category exists before using it — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 08:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
::I have reverted the change in ratings and left a note for the editor. That solves the immediate problem, but we can also add the exist check to stop this happening in future? — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 09:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
:::That explanation makes sense. As I said above, I just stumbled upon the red links and didn't dig in to figure out what was causing what; I do that a few times per day with other template issues and know that it can be a rabbit hole, and I didn't have the energy for this one. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 14:23, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
::::Code on the [[Module:WikiProject banner/auxiliary/sandbox|sandbox]] will only categorise if the category exists and is non-empty — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 15:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
::::: "and is non-empty" seems circular - just existence checking should suffice. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 23:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::This is how we've done it previously. It allows non-admins the ability to reverse the change - just blank the page and it will then not be used and can be tagged for deletion. Even for admins, populated categories can't be deleted, so there would be no way to stop using a particular category that is no longer needed. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 07:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
| |||