Content deleted Content added
MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 thread(s) from Template talk:WPBannerMeta. |
MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) m Archiving 3 thread(s) from Template talk:WPBannerMeta. |
||
Line 351:
The [[WP:Tennis]] project seems to use "pages" for [[:Category:Category-Class_tennis_pages]], Project-Class tennis pages, Portal-Class tennis pages instead of "articles" like: FA-Class tennis articles, GA-Class tennis articles, etc. This seems "somewhat" coherent to seperate true "articles" from Wikipedia "Pages" that support the functions of Wikipedia. Is there a way to either work this into WPBannerMeta or allow the deviation through a parameter? (or tell me how "|ASSESSMENT_CAT" is supposed to allow this type of naming? -- [[User:Mjquin id|Mjquin_id]] ([[User talk:Mjquin id|talk]]) 20:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
:Unfortunately not at the moment. You can have either "articles" or "pages", but all classes need to be the same. [[User talk:Msgj|Martin]] 20:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
== Another thought... ==
I think the "edit · history · watch · purge" text looks a little bit clunky where it currently is. Might I suggest the following:
<code><nowiki><td style="text-align:left; padding:0px; background-color:white; border:1px solid #c0c090; padding:5px; margin-top:5px;"><sup class=plainlinks><center>[{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}/Comments|action=edit}} edit]{{·}} [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}/Comments|action=history}} history]{{·}} [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}/Comments|action=watch}} watch]{{·}} [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=purge}} purge]</center></sup><br />{{{{FULLPAGENAME}}/Comments}}</td></nowiki></code>
which would move this into a centralised position within the actual comments box? In either case, note the unnecessary extra space preceeding the {{tlx|·}} templates. [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 19:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
:IMO, it was better before (apart from the spaces before {{tlx|·}}). —[[User:Ms2ger|Ms2ger]] ([[User talk:Ms2ger|talk]]) 20:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
::Reverted. What does everyone else think? <font color="forestgreen">[[User:Happy-melon|'''Happy''']]</font>‑<font color="darkorange">[[User talk:Happy-melon|'''melon''']]</font> 22:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
:::Could we see the two options side by side? [[User talk:Msgj|Martin]] 09:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
This should give you a rough idea...
Current:
<table class="collapsible" style="background:transparent" width="100%">
<tr><th style="background:#F8EABA; text-align:left; padding:0px;">'''Comments:''' <sup class=plainlinks>[{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}/Comments|action=edit}} edit] {{·}} [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}/Comments|action=history}} history] {{·}} [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}/Comments|action=watch}} watch] {{·}} [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=purge}} purge]</sup></th></tr>
<tr><td style="text-align:left; padding:0px; background-color:white; border:1px solid #c0c090; padding:5px; margin-top:5px;">{{{{FULLPAGENAME}}/Comments}}</td>
</tr></table>
Proposed:
<table class="collapsible" style="background:transparent" width="100%">
<tr><th style="background:#F8EABA; text-align:left; padding:0px;">'''Comments:'''</th></tr>
<tr><td style="text-align:left; padding:0px; background-color:white; border:1px solid #c0c090; padding:5px; margin-top:5px;"><sup class=plainlinks><center>[{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}/Comments|action=edit}} edit]{{·}} [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}/Comments|action=history}} history]{{·}} [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}/Comments|action=watch}} watch]{{·}} [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=purge}} purge]</center></sup><br />{{{{FULLPAGENAME}}/Comments}}</td>
</tr></table>
FWIW I think the bottom one looks neater. [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 12:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
:<s>I think I prefer the top one, if only because it takes up less room. You've got that orange bar doing not very much - might as well put the links in there. [[User talk:Msgj|Martin]] 13:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)</s>
:Changing my mind. Space is not an issue because it won't be displayed unless "show" is clicked. And it ''is'' clearer. Hmm, I'm torn. [[User talk:Msgj|Martin]] 13:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
::For one thing I think it's more appropraite to have these links with the actual message. At a glance, with the comments section collapsed, it's not obvious what they're for. [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 13:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
:::Okay, I support this change. Could I also suggest that the template checks not only that the /comments subpage ''exists'' but also that it ''contains something''? It's annoying when, occasionally, you go to check a comment and the comments have been blanked. [[User talk:Msgj|Martin]] 10:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
::::Would it be better if "purge" was "refresh" like it is on the [[:Template:Todo|Todo]] template? -- [[User:WOSlinker|WOSlinker]] ([[User talk:WOSlinker|talk]]) 20:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::Probably. Might be an idea to add a link for "view" as well. [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 21:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
This edit is to stop the archiving bot, as this thread is not concluded. [[User talk:Msgj|Martin]] 15:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
== Bottom-importance ==
Some WikiProjects, like [[WP:WikiProject Comics]] and [[WP:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons]], have a "Bottom" importance in addition to the other importance ratings, but that means that they can't use WPBannerMeta for their templates and still have that importance rating. Could functionality for Bottom-importance be added here for use on a WikiProject-by-WikiProject basis, so that groups who want it can use it and people who don't want it can ignore it? Thanks. -[[User:Drilnoth|Drilnoth]] ([[User talk:Drilnoth|talk]]) 03:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
:I have just added Bottom-importance to the D&D template as promised. I'm not sure if it's widely used enough to justify implementation across the board. I know of only you, comics and cricket that use it although I guess there might be others. I know that [[User:Happy-melon|Happy-melon]] said he was against custom importance masks, after all the difficulty in adding custom class masks, but let's see what he says ... [[User talk:Msgj|Martin]] 14:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
::(ec) Actually, it seems that {{tl|D&D}} has been altered to allow Bottom-importance anyway, so unless other projects want this it's a moot point. -[[User:Drilnoth|Drilnoth]] ([[User talk:Drilnoth|talk]]) 14:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
:::Thanks Martin! -[[User:Drilnoth|Drilnoth]] ([[User talk:Drilnoth|talk]]) 14:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
::::I don't have a problem with using custom importance masks ''per se'', just that coding it into the banner itself is computationally very expensive and fiddly, since a correct importance definition requires the class value to have ''already'' been normalised; either we create ''two'' layers of normalisation before hitting the actual code (messy), or we re-normalise the class value every time we need it for importance calculation (expensive because we have to use #ifexist:). In the situations where a banner is custom-coded to use an importance mask, that's not a problem, because you ''know'' that the custom mask will be there, you don't have to check for it. I've tweaked our own /importancescale subtemplate so you can call that instead of a D&D custom one; I'll have a think and see if it's possible to be more elegant than what you've done, but it's a perfectly satisfactory solution. Good thinking, too. <font color="forestgreen">[[User:Happy-melon|'''Happy''']]</font>‑<font color="darkorange">[[User talk:Happy-melon|'''melon''']]</font> 14:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::I'm entirely willing to believe that it's difficult! But I don't quite understand. Importance depends on class but class does not depend on importance. So check the class first, then check the importance. Why would you need to do it twice? [[User talk:Msgj|Martin]] 15:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::Hang on, I've got it. It would need an "intermediate" layer before the core. Yes, fiddly. [[User talk:Msgj|Martin]] 15:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
== Small errors in importance mask ==
A couple of small errors in the [[Template:WPBannerMeta/importance|importance mask]] have come to light while coding the {{tl|D&D}} template.
#There is a line that says "RM WHEN THESE ARE UNSUPPORTED" next to some classes which are now unsupported.
#The switch at the end doesn't work because the namespace begins with a capital letter. (You could save a few bytes by using SUBJECTSPACE here.)
[[User talk:Msgj|Martin]] 14:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
:{{fixed}} good spot. <font color="forestgreen">[[User:Happy-melon|'''Happy''']]</font>‑<font color="darkorange">[[User talk:Happy-melon|'''melon''']]</font> 15:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Unrelated error: AUTO_ASSESS_CAT is passed to core, but is not used. [[User talk:Msgj|Martin]] 15:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
::Needed a general overhaul <tt>:D</tt> <font color="forestgreen">[[User:Happy-melon|'''Happy''']]</font>‑<font color="darkorange">[[User talk:Happy-melon|'''melon''']]</font> 15:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
:::Excellent. You're on form today. Umm, request two headers up? [[User talk:Msgj|Martin]] 16:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
:::Oh, and is there any advantage in being able to specify NO auto-assess category? For example COMMENTS_CAT=none allows that. [[User talk:Msgj|Martin]] 16:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
::::That's on the todo list somewhere... during the next blue-moon season... <tt>:D</tt> it ''would'' be a good idea though. <font color="forestgreen">[[User:Happy-melon|'''Happy''']]</font>‑<font color="darkorange">[[User talk:Happy-melon|'''melon''']]</font> 16:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
| |||