Content deleted Content added
MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 thread(s) from Template talk:WPBannerMeta. |
MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 thread(s) from Template talk:WPBannerMeta. (ARCHIVE FULL) |
||
Line 1,173:
:::::::::::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)
== "FI" class, maybe? ==
It might be a bit of a burden, I know, but I was thinking that one of the purposes article assessments might be used most regularly for is selection of material for portals. I know I tend to use it when selecting items for the Christanity portal, for instance. In such cases, it might well be very useful to have a "Featured Image" class available, to make it easier to find and use the various relevant Featured Images. I acknowledge however that this might not be a function that would be used particularly often by other portals or projects I don't know as well. However, I am in the slow process of trying to help work on all the Christianity related portals, and I think having this option would probably help for all of them, and it might be useful for others as well. I'm not sure how many others might use the function, but it would be really useful for me. :) [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 23:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
:It's not really something that needs to be implemented here. To create a new assessment class you would need to add support for it at {{tl|class}}, {{tl|classcol}} and {{tl|classicon}}, then add a custom mask to {{tl|ChristianityWikiProject}}. I support the idea in principle because it would certainly be useful for WikiProjects to be able to track featured content under their scope, but if it's done for Featured Pictures then it should also be done for Featured Sounds, Featured Topics, Featured Portals, and perhaps even Valued Pictures and Good Topics as well. [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 14:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
::Personally [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dinoguy1000/Assessment_category_RfC#.5BCategory.2FTemplate.2FImage.2FFile.5D-Class I'm all for it]. [[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {<sup>[[User talk:Headbomb|ταλκ]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|κοντριβς]]</sub> – [[WP:PHYS|WP Physics]]} 17:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
:::Some interesting discussion on that page, though as I've said in the past I'm opposed to the addition of "Type" alongside "Class" and "Importance/Priority". It's completely redundant. [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 17:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
::::Not completely redundant perhaps, and I admit to liking some aspects of the proposal. But I think the case for such a big change has yet to be made. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 20:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::Well... that's a little o/t. :) WP Christianity could also keep track of Featured Pictures using notes rather than by adding a new assessment class. [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 20:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
It's redundant in the sense that it covers everything that was covered, and more. If that's your definition of redundant, my dual core is redundant of my long-forgotten pentium 4. It's not a trivial redesign of the banner, I'll concede that much, but in the long run, it's really the only thing that makes sense (IMO). Otherwise the banner becomes the limitation on what can be done, and will impede the growth of Wikipedia. What is not used can be left unused. For example, if a project isn't interested in assessing lists, they could still use "class=List" or "class=FL" rather than "class=B type=list" / "class=Featured |type=List". [[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {<sup>[[User talk:Headbomb|ταλκ]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|κοντριβς]]</sub> – [[WP:PHYS|WP Physics]]} 02:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
:It's a needless over-complication; "Type" is already evident from a page's "Class". I'm assuming that you don't want to have the likes of "class=Start|type=template"? If this is solely for the assessment of list articles, then we have an existing assessment scale which is fit for that purpose. "Impeding the growth of Wikipedia"? That a little over dramatic, isn't it? :) [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 02:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
:Well there are lists, but also sounds, images, books (soon to come), portals, videos, topics, lists, ... which could (and sometimes are) be assessed, and possibly more. If your concern is "|class=start |type=template" then you should equally be concerned with "|class=template |importance=high". And personally, if a project wants to assess it's templates, that's really up to them and not us. [[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {<sup>[[User talk:Headbomb|ταλκ]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|κοντριβς]]</sub> – [[WP:PHYS|WP Physics]]} 03:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
::Templates don't need assessing, and we shouldn't encourage projects to do so. Nor do any of the other things you mention. Let's try and remember that we're supposed to be assessing ''articles''. Besides a handfull of new classes to cover other featured/good content (and perhaps a Topic-Class), I really don't think we're missing anything. The cross referencing of "Type" and "Class" that you seem to be proposing throws up far too many unnecessary and undesirable variables, IMO. What are "Books"? [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 10:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
:::See [[Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Books]] for example (and [[Help:Books]]). [Also this wouldn't encourage the assessing of templates anymore that allowing the importance rating for template encourages the "importancing" of templates]. [[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {<sup>[[User talk:Headbomb|ταλκ]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|κοντριβς]]</sub> – [[WP:PHYS|WP Physics]]} 15:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
::::Also, while templates might not "need" assessing, the new [[Wikipedia:Article alerts]] function works on the basis of the pages in question either having the banner placed on them or being included in the categories generated by the banners, which, in effect, makes it more useful for the template to have some sort of parameter to use on them, even if only the extant NA. And again, whether for good or ill, I was thinking that many of the banners already have an "Image" class, and that the two other classes which have a "Featured" variant also have separate assessment grades for them, so adding this grade seemed at least to me to be sonsistent with the prior work done on the template. [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 17:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
The purposes of the assessment system are 1) to assist WP1.0 in selecting articles for static releases, and 2) to assist WikiProject members in prioritising their work. The purpose of WPBM's assessment code is to technically support the assessment system, and to minimise the administrative overhead associated with a project managing its slice of the assessment system. The purpose of the template is not to allow people to categorise things to an arbitrary precise degree, except where that furthers those two goals above. <p>Adding a {{para|type}} parameter multiplies the number of possible permutations of the assessment scheme by however many type values you allow; probably by around five or six times. Maintaining this very large number of possibilities significantly increases the administrative cost of the assessment system. What benefit does it provide? More importantly, how does it allow the limited resources of the WikiProject to be applied to a sufficiently better degree to outweigh the time cost of implementing the system? Saying that "a project isn't interested in assessing lists..." is disingenuous because you are not proposing a system that gives individual projects choice. This would be a change more akin to the C-Class introduction, something that would be possible, but difficult, for projects to opt out of. And recall the problems that those projects found with C-Class; except for a tiny handful of projects that run regular assessment drives, I'd say 95% of tag-and-assess is done by users who are not 'members' of the project they are tagging for. The C-Class optouts found that they were still accumulating large numbers of C-Class articles, because passing editors were 'helpfully' tagging them thus. With a change this extensive, it would be impossible for projects to opt-out entirely: either they implement the system and shoulder the increased administrative costs, or they shoulder the administrative costs ''anyway'' in keeping things the way they were. So the costs are unavoidable. Where are the benefits? [[User:Happy-melon|<span style="color:forestgreen">'''Happy'''</span>]]‑[[User talk:Happy-melon|<span style="color:darkorange">'''melon'''</span>]] 16:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
:Concerning "objective 2)", if you want to prioritize work when you have >3 million pages to monitor (and I don't know how many category, books, topics, images...), you need a solid classification scheme. The encyclopedia consists of more than just the articles. There are categories, lists (also "articles" in a way), books, topics, and so on. If you introduce the type parameter, you can now assess lists, topics, books, and so on, thus allowing to identify which of them needs works. These are the benefits. And there is a demand for it.<br><br>Saying "if a project isn't interested in..." is not disingenuous in the least. Many project don't use the list-class. Some don't even use the "FA" and "FL" classes (Chemistry project comes to mind). Others don't tag their redirects. What I'm proposing gives no less a choice than Project already have. If you don't want to assess lists, don't assess them. If you don't want to keep track of topics, don't tag them with the banner. If you don't care about tagging templates, don't tag them.<br><br>For the C-Class opt out, if the passerby tagging of C-Class really is a problem, then hardcode a "C-Class = Yes" in the metabanner. If this isn't passed, then have the banner treat "|class=C" as "|class=Start". Problem solved, at no costs to WikiProjects. [[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {<sup>[[User talk:Headbomb|ταλκ]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|κοντριβς]]</sub> – [[WP:PHYS|WP Physics]]} 17:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
::I'm not necessarily ''against'' a greater distinction of pages based on type, but after reading above comments, I am led to believe that it would be best to add support via an auxiliary template which then gets hooked into individual banners for projects which want the additional functionality. WPBM then still maintains its primary use - WP:1.0 quality/importance tracking - and projects that really want to go to the extra effort and trouble to assess their lists while still noting that they're lists (most common possible usage) have a simplish (simple-ish?) way to do it. And I still have no interest in actually pursuing any such system in the above linked RFC draft; as I've said more than once there, that is intended merely to help line up and polish all the little trinkets we're already juggling, not to add new ones on top of them. <span style=white-space:nowrap>「[[User:Dinoguy1000|<span style=color:#00f>ダイノ<span style=color:#080>ガイ]][[Special:Contributions/Dinoguy1000|<span style=color:#F90>千？！]]」<sup>[[Help:IJP|?]] · [[User talk:Dinoguy1000#top|Talk⇒Dinoguy1000]]</sup></span> 18:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
::Your whole argument hinges on your first sentence: "if you want to prioritize work [in this environment], you need [this] classification scheme". I don't take that as axiomatic. What's your justification for that assertion? Why does a project being able to separate its featured images from its featured sounds (and from its other media) help it to more efficiently improve the encyclopedia? [[User:Happy-melon|<span style="color:forestgreen">'''Happy'''</span>]]‑[[User talk:Happy-melon|<span style="color:darkorange">'''melon'''</span>]] 20:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
:::It was actually my proposal, and my reasons were, even if stated poorly, (1) better images on the portals will likely increase the number of featured portals, possibly increasing the amount of traffic to those portals, and, thus, by extension, to the articles relevant to the portal, which should benefit the project, and (2) it seemed to me with the existing FA grade along with other articles grades, and the L/FL grading, that, given there already is an "Image" class, an "FI" class might be seen as a logical extension of that. I never even thought of bringing all the others mentioned above in. [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 20:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
::::Actually, I think the thread has drifted far away from that original proposal, which is considerably more focused.
::::I agree that tracking featured content is an area where the benefits ''would'' outweigh the administrative cost. Fortunately, most types of featured content (articles vs media vs portals) can be distinguished by namespace, provided that all a project's featured content can itself be identified. Would a {{para|featured|yes}} parameter, displaying a message that adapts by namespace, be an effective solution? [[User:Happy-melon|<span style="color:forestgreen">'''Happy'''</span>]]‑[[User talk:Happy-melon|<span style="color:darkorange">'''melon'''</span>]] 21:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::That would work fine by me. [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 21:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
::::::Since we already have FA and FL classes, it would seem simpler to add a new class for featured pictures rather than adding a new parameter (unless we are running with Headbomb's proposals). I think there is little need to track portals using WikiProject banners (typically there is no more than a one or two portals within a project's scope - it's hardly going to be hard to keep track of which of them are featured). I can see the use of keeping track of featured pictures though (I think I even suggested it somewhere) but would prefer FP to FI, or perhaps FM for Featured Media if sounds are to be included as well. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 12:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
::::::I've found [[Template_talk:Grading_scheme#Overhaul|where it came up before]]. There were some reservations about FP-class because of the ambiguity between Pictures/Portals. FF-class (Featured file) was also suggested by Dinoguy over there. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 12:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Heh, I remember that... *imagines a new user seeing "FF-class page" and thinking "wait, this page is Final Fantasy class?"* XD (oh, and I still want to do something with Featured Templates, but I'm hopelessly unmotivated) <span style=white-space:nowrap>「[[User:Dinoguy1000|<span style=color:#00f>ダイノ<span style=color:#080>ガイ]][[Special:Contributions/Dinoguy1000|<span style=color:#F90>千？！]]」<sup>[[Help:IJP|?]] · [[User talk:Dinoguy1000#top|Talk⇒Dinoguy1000]]</sup></span> 19:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
::::::::If we're going to go down that line, I'd support FM. I doubt we're ever going to set up [[Wikipedia:Featured MediaWiki system messages]].... <tt>:D</tt>
::::::::Featured Templates? Nice idea, but utter hell to set criteria for. Which is most elegible for featured-ness, {{tlx|ambox}}, {{tlx|str sub}} or {{tlx|!}}? <tt>:P</tt> [[User:Happy-melon|<span style="color:forestgreen">'''Happy'''</span>]]‑[[User talk:Happy-melon|<span style="color:darkorange">'''melon'''</span>]] 22:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::Actually, I like to think about a possible FT process, and I do have a usable set of criteria, I think, though they probably need further polishing. When I have more time, maybe I'll start a subpage draft in my userspace (teaser: any template, regardless of complexity, could be nominated as long as it's got clean, bug-free source or is well-maintained and is reasonably well-used... or something - like I said, needs polishing). =) <span style=white-space:nowrap>「[[User:Dinoguy1000|<span style=color:#00f>ダイノ<span style=color:#080>ガイ]][[Special:Contributions/Dinoguy1000|<span style=color:#F90>千？！]]」<sup>[[Help:IJP|?]] · [[User talk:Dinoguy1000#top|Talk⇒Dinoguy1000]]</sup></span> 22:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::Can't say I'm terribly enthusiastic about "Featured Media" because it's an invented term. I was actually thinking that HM was on the right track with his previous suggestion. [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 22:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
| |||