Content deleted Content added
MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 thread(s) from Template talk:WPBannerMeta. |
MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 thread(s) from Template talk:WPBannerMeta. |
||
Line 757:
:Many thanks! [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 21:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
== Categorisation issues ==
While I'm pretty much a convert to the benefits of the meta, one of the few reservations I have left is the categorisation for the non-standard classes. As I understand it, the meta will only accept categories such as:
<blockquote>Category:Category-Class fooian articles<br />Category:Template-Class fooian articles</blockquote>
etc. While this may be the ''de facto'' naming convention for such categories, it's also wildly inaccurate; these are not ''articles'', after all. Is there any way for the meta to resolve this? [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 15:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
:The way to resolve it would be to rename all 10,000-odd categories that use that naming convention. I agree that it is counterintuitive, but it is the most common syntax in use today. Which is more important, being semantically ''correct'' or being semantically ''consistent''?? What ''harm'' does it do to have the categories follow an admittedly anachronistic naming convention? More importantly, what convention would you propose to replace it? <font color="forestgreen">[[User:Happy-melon|'''Happy''']]</font>‑<font color="darkorange">[[User talk:Happy-melon|'''melon''']]</font> 15:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
::There is still a significant minority of projects that use a mix of categories such as:
::<blockquote>Category:Start-Class fooian articles<br />Category:Template-Class fooian pages</blockquote>
::where appropriate, but as I said, I believe the meta is unable to handle such a combination. The proliferation of these semantically incorrect categories is in part due to the meta where converted banners have had to drop one categoriation scheme in favour of another. Admittingly it is a rather harmless problem, though it's possible that some might consider such clumsy naming a dealbreaker when it comes to conversion. Personally I would place a higher value on being sematically ''correct''. :) What I'm really asking is this: how feasible would it be to have the meta use ''article'' and ''page'' interchangeably depending on the class being used? [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 16:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
:::Just a small comment, In [[:Category:Template-Class articles]], there are currently 645 categories ending in "articles" and only 36 ending in "pages". -- [[User:WOSlinker|WOSlinker]] ([[User talk:WOSlinker|talk]]) 18:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Outdent, If you relly want to look at inconsistencies, why does -Class use a capital letter and -importance use a lowercase letter? -- [[User:WOSlinker|WOSlinker]] ([[User talk:WOSlinker|talk]]) 18:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
== Template:WikiProject Belarus ==
This template seems to be broken, in that it no longer categorizes articles by class and importance. I don't understand template syntax well enough to fix it. Could someone please take a look? --[[User:Stepheng3|Stepheng3]] ([[User talk:Stepheng3|talk]]) 21:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
:I've added in the importance & quality scales -- [[User:WOSlinker|WOSlinker]] ([[User talk:WOSlinker|talk]]) 22:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
::That's better. Thanks. --[[User:Stepheng3|Stepheng3]] ([[User talk:Stepheng3|talk]]) 01:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
| |||