Content deleted Content added
MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) m Archiving 3 thread(s) from Template talk:WPBannerMeta. |
MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 thread(s) from Template talk:WPBannerMeta. |
||
Line 1,041:
:There are probably lots of other checks we could add as well if we wanted. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 22:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
::Waiting for a code review for #3 (see a thread near the top...) — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 11:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
== Another feature request for task forces ==
Can a {{para|HOOK_CAT}} parameter be added to {{tl|WPBannerMeta/taskforce}}? This is merely to allow extra categories to be hooked onto each individual task force, which has the advantage of keeping things more streamlined and organised than just tacking them onto the end of the banner code. I've already tested this in the sandbox and it seems fairly trivial to implement. [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 14:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
:Hmm, this request is a little odd. I could sort of see the purpose of supporting MAIN_CAT_2 (but even this seems rather unnecessary to me). But the place where you've put this new parameter in the code would not even benefit from the category supression ... — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 09:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
::Just to clarify, it's for hooking {{tl|WPBannerMeta/hooks/cats}} which already has category suppression. Have a look at the code for {{tl|WPBiography/sandbox}} and see how I have employed this feature for the filmbio work group. This is, IMHO, a better way of doing things, and I'm rather keen to see this change go ahead. [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 10:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
:::Well HOOK_CAT is still strange. Theoretically you could hook anything, not just categories. TF_HOOK might make more sense. No strong opinion on whether it is a good way of doing things though. Except that, things of benefit to just one banner (however big!) are probably best implemented locally. Unless you think this has possible broader benefits. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 10:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
::::Sure, in theory it could be used to hook anything (though I'm not sure if you'd want to). No objections to a rename, though. The advantages I see for {{tl|WPBiography/sandbox}} are twofold: first, it keeps the categories for work groups grouped together, so they aren't all jumbled at the foot of the page; second, it should avoid unnecessarily repeating arguments such as <code><nowiki>{{#ifexpr: {{#if:{{lc:{{{a&e-work-group|}}}}}|1|0}} * {{#if:{{lc:{{{musician-work-group|}}}}}|0|1}} * {{#if:{{lc:{{{filmbio-work-group|}}}}}|0|1}} |yes}}</nowiki></code>. I'm not sure how I could do this locally, but isn't it the purpose of the meta to avoid such things? ;) No reason why it couldn't benefit other existing meta banners. Certainly I would be back here asking for it if we were to ever convert {{tl|Film}}. [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 10:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::Okay, I agree that code for film-bio is neater and clearer like that. It is also fairly easy to implement and adds little complication to the template. So I am not strongly opposed but still need convincing that this is worthwhile, and waiting for thoughts from others. (Of course, adding a NOTE_HOOK parameter could achieve the same result, right? Why did you decide to do it that way round?) — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 12:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::Do you mean the {{para|HOOK_NOTE}} parameter in the main banner code? [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 13:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::::No! I meant that adding a {{para|NOTE_HOOK}} parameter to [[Template:WPBannerMeta/note]] could achieve the same as adding a {{para|TF_HOOK}} to [[Template:WPBannerMeta/taskforce]]. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 13:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Right, you mean if I had something like this:
<pre style="overflow:auto;">
|note 4={{{needs-infobox|}}}
|NOTE_4_TEXT = An appropriate '''[[Wikipedia:Infobox templates|infobox]]''' may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Infoboxes|list of biography infoboxes]] for further information.
|NOTE_4_CAT = Biography articles without infoboxes
|NOTE_4_HOOK = {{WPBannerMeta/hooks/cats
|category={{{category|¬}}}
|BANNER_NAME = Template:WPBiography
|cat 1={{{military-work-group|}}}
|CAT_1 = Military biography work group articles needing infoboxes
}}
</pre>
I guess that's equally valid, and I don't suppose it really matters. I guess I did it the other way because I felt it more appropriate to have everything relating to a single task force in one place. [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 00:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Since {{tlx|WPBannerMeta/hooks/cats}} has no visible output, you can just put it at the end of the {{para|TF_n_TEXT}} text. Tidy would move any visible output that you put into the hook at that ___location, to the end of the text anyway. [[User:Happy-melon|<span style="color:forestgreen">'''Happy'''</span>]]‑[[User talk:Happy-melon|<span style="color:darkorange">'''melon'''</span>]] 14:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
So that would be:
<pre style="overflow:auto;">
|tf 2={{{filmbio-work-group|}}}
|TF_2_LINK = Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers
|TF_2_TEXT = This {{pagetype|{{{class|}}}}} is supported by '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers|WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers]]''', an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to actors and filmmakers on Wikipedia.{{WPBannerMeta/hooks/cats
|category={{{category|¬}}}
|BANNER_NAME = Template:WPBiography
|cat 1={{{auto|}}}
|CAT_1 = Automatically assessed biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
}}
|TF_2_NESTED = Actors and Filmmakers
|TF_2_IMAGE = Fratelli Lumiere.jpg
|TF_2_SIZE = 30x30px
|TF_2_QUALITY = yes
|tf 2 importance={{{priority|{{{importance|}}}}}}
|TF_2_ASSESSMENT_CAT = biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
|TF_2_MAIN_CAT = Actors and filmmakers work group articles
</pre>
Right? I guess I could do things that way if you guys are reluctant to add the extra parameter, though it seems far less intuitive. [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 00:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
:Yes, that might be a good way to do it for now. Or, we could maybe compromise and add it as a feature to the taskforce hook, as keeping the hooks efficient and streamlined is much less of an issue. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 08:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
::I've added this to the taskforce hook. WPBio wanted to use the default taskforce text, therefore the text parameter cannot be used and this seemed the easiest way. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 10:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Any thoughts on the changes I've made at {{tl|WPBannerMeta/taskforce/sandbox}}? It doesn't seem logical to me for the task force importance ratings to be attached to the default text, since this will be overridden by the custom text. I think it would also be useful for "Foo-importance" to link to the appropriate category. In addition (this is something I ''didn't'' code in the sandbox), since we no longer display NA-importance in the main banner assessments, should we not also suppress NA-importance here as well? [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 16:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
:#Would be difficult because quite a few projects (e.g. [[Template:WPMED]]) display the importance as part of their custom text, and so this change would make it display twice.
:#Hmm, maybe.
:#Support.
:— Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 17:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
::Do you know why that banner uses custom text? At a glace it looks identical to the default text. [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 17:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
:::If taskforce-specific importance is not specified then some of the taskforces wanted to inherit the main importance. But they don't want it displayed on the taskforce in this case. See [[Template talk:WPMED#Taskforce importance]]. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 17:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
::::#Hmmm... would that be the only banner affected? Perhaps a seperate parameter to define custom behaviour like this, though that may be a little overcomplicated.
::::#I was thinking this would be useful in the same way you have {{tl|class}} and {{tl|importance}} linking to specific categories.
::::#Shall we do it then? :) [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 17:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::#I doubt it's the only one. It would be quite a job to hunt down all the others ...
:::::#Waiting to see what others think about this.
:::::#I've added it to the to-do list. (Would like to get the QUALITY_SCALE stuff done before messing with the sandboxes!)
:::::— Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 07:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I've made a few changes to [[Template:WPBannerMeta/taskforce/sandbox|/taskforce/sandbox]].
#Re-order so that quality categories are added before importance categories, to match order in the overall quality/importance scales.
#Not displaying importance if it is ''Unknown'' or ''NA''.
#Undo the change to custom text. I think this needs more care and further investigation before we can change it.
#Restored the words "marked as" - I think it makes it clearer than just having the name of the taskforce with the importance in brackets.
I would like to start using ''importance=¬'' for when the importance scale is not used by a taskforce, instead of the IMPORTANCE parameter. This will require some different code to make the transition smooth. Basically we need the importance mask to pass through ¬, as the class mask does now. Any comments? — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 11:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
:If there are no concerns or comments then I will start to make this change in the next day or two. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 12:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
::I've started on this. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 09:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
::#Add transition code to /taskforce so that the importance scale is not used if either IMPORTANCE is blank or importance=¬ {{done}}
::#Pass ¬ through the importance mask {{done}}
::#Ensure that importance=¬ is used in all cases when importance scale is not desired {{done}}
::#Remove transition code from /taskforce so that IMPORTANCE is not used {{done}}
::#Remove IMPORTANCE from all calls to /taskforce {{done}}
:::Think I'm just about done with this. It's wrecked the nice efficient coding on /hooks/taskforces/core so I might look at that again now. Everything else seems to be working well. Farewell to {{para|IMPORTANCE}} — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 11:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
===Another idea===
What would people think about using {{para|TF_n_TEXT|none}} to allow quality/importance classification on additional categories without any output? This would be analogous to the blank notes which are now allowed. It might simplify some banners which currently use the [[Template:WPBannerMeta/hooks/qualitycats|/qualitycats]] hook. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 16:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
:What does /qualitycats actually do? It isn't very well documented. [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 16:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
::Well it implements additional quality categories without any output. For example [[Template:WikiProject Lutheranism]] uses it to add articles to subcats of [[:Category:Christianity articles by quality]]. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 16:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
:::I have implemented this now. I'm just thinking that it would probably be better to disable the nested text in this case, otherwise there could be could be visual output of the taskforce in the nested format but not in the expanded format which would be weird. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 18:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
== Boldly going where no auto-assessment bot has gone before... ==
[[File:Robot icôn.svg|right|100px|A robot]]
Xenobot is happily chugging away, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20090907183000&target=Xenobot+Mk+V&limit=1583 1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20091004004000&target=Xenobot+Mk+V&limit=1226 2] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20091004033831&limit=993&target=Xenobot+Mk+V 3] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20091004053232&target=Xenobot+Mk+V&limit=735 4] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20091004063000&target=Xenobot+Mk+V&limit=121 5] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20091004183000&target=Xenobot+Mk+V&limit=3925 6] auto-inheriting classes for projects that have requested it (currently 3, and about to ping 5 of the top 10 projects in terms of unassessed backlog as well). Could we could allow for native recognition of "auto=inherit"? Currently using this hook:
<pre>
|note 3={{{auto|}}}
|NOTE_3_TEXT = This article was [[WP:AUTOASSESS|automatically rated]] by a [[Wikipedia:Bots|bot]] because {{#ifeq:{{{auto}}}|yes
|it uses a [[Wikipedia:Stub|stub template]]
|at least one other project used this rating
}}. Please ensure that the assessment is correct before removing the {{para|auto|{{#ifeq:{{{auto}}}|yes|yes|inherit}}}} parameter.
|NOTE_3_IMAGE = Robot icon.svg
|NOTE_3_CAT = Automatically assessed Toronto articles
</pre>
Thanks, –<font face="verdana" color="black">[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']]</font>[[user talk:xeno|<font color="black"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 20:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
:{{doing|Thinking}} not ignoring ;) — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 12:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
::Me too; I think this is good, but it has caveats to work through. I think we'll want to implement something like {{para|auto|stub}}, {{para|auto|inherit}}, and {{para|auto|yes}} as B/C for "stub". I shall await Martin's words of wisdom... <tt>:D</tt> [[User:Happy-melon|<span style="color:forestgreen">'''Happy'''</span>]]‑[[User talk:Happy-melon|<span style="color:darkorange">'''melon'''</span>]] 13:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
:::Yes, I had thought about that as well. We could go one further and allow "auto=XX" for any class, and then if class= does not match auto=, the auto verbiage is suppressed and some kind of maintenance category could be added (Automatically assessed articles that have been re-rated... or something) for a bot or human to clear the auto flag. –<font face="verdana" color="black">[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']]</font>[[user talk:xeno|<font color="black"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 13:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
No words of wisdom, but a few points:
*I would definitely support using the class as the parameter value because it allows for a more descriptive message and would avoid confusion if the class is ever changed without removing the ''auto/inherited'' parameter.
*Combining ''auto'' and ''inherited'' seems sensible because their purpose is so similar, but having {{para|auto|yes}} working with {{para|auto|{{{class}}}}} seems sub-optimal and not intuitive. For instance there is no particular reason why {{para|auto|stub}} could mean either of the following:
**This article has been automatically rated as Stub-Class by a bot because it uses a stub template.
**This article has been automatically rated as Stub-Class by a bot because at least one other project used this rating.
*As there are only a handful of projects inheriting classes currently, I have to wonder if it is worth adding the support here when it is so easy to add the note text above to individual banners. (And it would be good to iron out the issues and sort out the best way to do this by working on a small scale first!) I still haven't got round to adding a {{para|needs-image}} parameter yet, and far more banners are likely to find that useful ...
— Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 11:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
:I'd suggest continuing to use "auto=yes" for the first issue. There are so many "Automatically assessed articles" that have auto=yes that it will likely never be fully converted to the new method. However, if this isn't preferable, auto=stub-inherit or something could be used. –<font face="verdana" color="black">[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']]</font>[[user talk:xeno|<font color="black"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 11:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
::Why not continue to use banner notes locally for the time being? I would recommend using the class and only displaying when that class equals the current class (as you suggested). And for future-protection you could continue to use {{para|inherited}} for this purpose. (It would be easy to use {{para|auto|<nowiki>{{{auto|{{{inherited|}}}}}}</nowiki>}} on relevant banner templates if it was decided later to combine the two parameters ... — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 12:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
:::I think you guys are overthinking things. There are any number of ways that a bot could auto assess an article, so rather than trying to cater for them all it would (IMO) be better to keep the wording for {{para|auto}} generic so that it fits any given situation. "This article was assessed automatically by a bot" is all you really need to say; if necessary, any specifics can be outlined more fully at [[WP:AUTOASSESS]]. That's what I was going for at {{tl|Film}}, anyway. [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 16:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
::::I can keep using notes, it's no problem. But I'm getting mixed messages here, someone suggested [[Template talk:WPBannerMeta/Archive 7#need change in auto= verbiage|last time]] to keep it all in the "auto" param =) –<font face="verdana" color="black">[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']]</font>[[user talk:xeno|<font color="black"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 17:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::Yes, I don't see value in using separate parameters. And I agree with PC78. The schema I'd like would be something like this:
:::::*{{para|auto|stub}} → "This article has been automatically assessed by a bot, as it uses a stub template".
:::::*{{para|auto|inherit}} → "This article has been automatically assessed by a bot, because another banner on this page uses this class".
:::::*{{para|auto|cheesecake}} → "This article has been automatically assessed by a bot, for some reason to do with cheesecakes".
:::::*{{para|auto|yes}} → '''???'''
:::::What to do with {{para|auto|yes}} is, IMO, the main question. [[User:Happy-melon|<span style="color:forestgreen">'''Happy'''</span>]]‑[[User talk:Happy-melon|<span style="color:darkorange">'''melon'''</span>]] 19:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
::::::As I intimated above, "auto=yes" will not be deprecated from its existing usage in the foreseeable future. –<font face="verdana" color="black">[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']]</font>[[user talk:xeno|<font color="black"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 20:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Actually, what I was suggesting is that we just use:
:::::::*{{para|auto|yes}} → "This article has been automatically assessed by a bot".
:::::::and not bother with any other parameters and/or variables, because it's suitably generic for whatever the bot is actually doing. The specifics aren't that important, IMO. [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 20:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
::::::::Simple is good... Consider this, though. When I do a job for a WikiProject I usually auto-stub first. So I find those articles that have a {{tl|stub}} template and apply the stub class. Afterwards, I do the inheritance task. Now, if, during the inheritance task, I inherit the class of "stub"... What does that indicate? Probably that the inherited class is wrong! (Or that the article lacks a relevant stub template). Either way, it's a potential flag for action for projects that want to keep on top of these things... –<font face="verdana" color="black">[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']]</font>[[user talk:xeno|<font color="black"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 20:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::What would your bot normally do in such a situation? [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 20:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::All projects thus far have wanted to still inherit anyway. My point was that if we use descriptors (auto=stub for 'class stub because we found a stub template' and auto=inherit for inheritance), then we can have a maintenance cat for the intersection of class=stub and auto=inherit. –<font face="verdana" color="black">[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']]</font>[[user talk:xeno|<font color="black"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 13:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::How does the bot currently handle inherited assessments? Does it just give the assessment, or does it also add {{para|auto|yes}}? [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 15:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::OK, based on the current run for WP:BIOGRAPHY the bot adds {{para|auto|inherit}} whether or not the banner supports it? To reiterate what I said above, I don't think the banner should display a different message for each situation, because there are too many potential variations to cater for. What we ''could'' do is use different parameter values to populate different categories, which would still allow for the intersections you mention above. [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 19:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::Sure, this is something we should set in the bio template itself. Perhaps alongside [[Template_talk:WPBiography#Make_auto.3Dyes_less_obtrusive|this fix?]] –<font face="verdana" color="black">[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']]</font>[[user talk:xeno|<font color="black"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 02:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
| |||