Template talk:Articles by Quality and Importance

Low importance total[edit]

Have amended to take away five from low importance total. 5903. No idea why the category says five to many. SunCreator (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts is that some articles have a {{Chess-WikiProject}} template on the talk of pages where the page is redirected, this occurs normally after a merge. SunCreator (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stolen[edit]

I've stolen this fine template from WP Chess and adapted it for use with other projects. It's not really ready yet. It doesn't have checks on the existence of categories (e.g. Bottom-importance categories). — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome to put it to good use. Was originally done for the chess so checking for categories that where in use didn't seem appropriate. Anyway, yeah it's rather fine. SunCreator (talk) 20:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW you refer to this as a template, but is this a template? Had some discussion on that topic before. See User_talk:SyG#Template. Perhaps you can clear it up to exactly whether it's a template or not. SunCreator (talk) 20:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are two possible definitions of a template.

A page in the template namespace (it is now)
A page which is transcluded on other pages (certainly true)

So I think it is a template ;) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History?[edit]

Woah, this is a pretty cool template! Kudos to you, SunCreator! :) My only problem now is that we don't get a history of the statistics like we do with the old system that is updated by a bot (Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Chess articles by quality statistics). Would someone happen to have enough know-how and spare time to create a bot that would save the contents of this template at some page at, say, the end of each month? This data can be used to plot nice graphs about the amount and quality of articles within a project, you know. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 11:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be easier to just look through the history of Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Chess articles by quality statistics? This template has the advantage in that updates instantly, but that list has the advantage of retaining the history. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both ways can exist together. For history statistics see WP:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Chess_articles_by_quality_statistics&action=history SunCreator (talk) 19:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but the old way does not separate 'bottom importance' and 'unknown importance' articles. It's probably fair to assume that the Chess Project does not have any articles with unknown importance anymore, but the point stands, the old way can not adapt to changes that take place within the new template. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 19:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It missing the unassessed-class but known-importance row[edit]

This is a super great template, so it would be nice if you could update it with that row. Also it would be even nicer if it supported (but not by default) merges, templates, categories, books, and so on. This way I could replace the physics table (see WP:PHYS, both table and the green drop-box). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 02:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if the unassessed-class/unknown-importance tallies could give the complete percentage, it would also be neat. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 02:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of the unassessed-class/unknown-importance row/column. It was taken out to simplify(reducing display and cateogries) and replaced with 'Unknown importance:'/'Unknown quality' listed at the bottom. Figures have never been a percentage so not sure what you mean. Do you have an example? SunCreator (talk) 14:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that you usually want to assess the higher-importance categories first. Also for percentage I mean something like 343 [out of say 12,000] articles unassessed (2.85%), 1552 [out of say 12,000] articles of unknown-importance (12.93%). That last part isn't essential by any means, its just nice to have. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 14:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not Unassessed-importance?[edit]

Changes have been made today to add an Unassess-importance row, this is not the same as the previous naming. SunCreator (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Example previously Category:Unassessed_chess_articles -> Category:Unassessed-Class_chess_articles SunCreator (talk) 00:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it makes sense to use the same parameter options as Template:WPBannerMeta/hooks/qualimpintersect. Therefore I have just added support for an UNASSESSED_APPENDIX parameter, which will allow -Class to be appended to unassessed categories. Does this help? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will you be doing this to every project? I think the chess project is done in standard way. SunCreator (talk) 00:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we may be at crossed purposes. The change I have made gives projects the option to use Category:Unassessed-Class Top-importance TOPIC articles rather than Category:Unassessed Top-importance TOPIC articles. Can you explain what you don't like about the current version? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I was thinking that ever wikiproject had categories in format like Category:Unassessed Architecture articles of Top-importance, but I now realise they don't. SunCreator (talk) 14:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is still a problem here. Didn't you mean to have an APPENDIX parameter so that Unassessed Foo can be appended to the Unassess-Class Foo articles? The opposite of what you done above? It's no good adding the '-Class', as that is NOT the category they are in and thus {{Articles by Quality and Importance}} does not count them. SunCreator (talk) 23:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let me try to explain. Adding support for the UNASSESSED_APPENDIX parameter (strange name but anyway ...) allowed your project to use Category:Unassessed-Class chess articles of Low-importance rather than Category:Unassessed chess articles of Low-importance. Now, as those links are both red now, your project doesn't use either so it doesn't really matter. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is still a ~~logical~~ purpose issue here. The idea is not to add an exception parameter to the chess template, as to do so would imply that as a later stage you will be doing the same thing with virtually all other WikiProjects. Surely that is not the aim. The aim should be to make this work with as little modification as possible to the existing setup. SunCreator (talk) 02:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scope for expansion?[edit]

I've seen tables like this at a number of projects. Perhaps this template should be expanded to cover the extra information? PC78 (talk) 19:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I like the idea. First some agreed way of making the different importance columns and class rows optional would be desirable. SunCreator (talk) 19:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like this template to accept the same parameters as /qualimpintersect as far as possible. That would make it easiest to use. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly Broken[edit]

This template appears to correctly count the number of Unassessed (???) articles. It currently reads 0 but if you click the zero there are actually several hundred. --Sabre ball^{t c} 14:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that Template:AbQ gets it correct. Perhaps this template can mimic that one? --Sabre ball^{t c} 14:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can see the problem. Checking for class i.e Category:Unassessed Class Food and drink articles rather then Category:Unassessed Food and drink articles. Chenge required in {{Articles_by_Quality_and_Importance/row}} perhaps. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 16:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

rowspan and thead bug[edit]

The problem

This revision of the template wasn't displaying as intended today. Specifically, the first header row has a rowspan="2" that wasn't being honored, leaving the second header row out of alignment with the table content.

The cause

colspan can't cross the boundaries of <thead> and <tbody>

At some point, MediaWiki began automatically generating <thead> and <tbody> tags based on <th>. (See related phab:T6740.)

The solution MediaWiki doesn't allow us to manually create the <thead>. However, we can convince the code that generates the <thead> to include the second header row by marking the second row up as <th> rather than just a <td>, as I did with revision 1011652960.

Related

phab:T6740: thead, tbody, tfoot for wikitable syntax

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Daask (talk • contribs) 02:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"At some point, MediaWiki began automatically generating": Not really. Only two scripts do that. Tablesorter (part of mediawiki, but not in use here) and the Sticky tableheaders user gadget of English Wikipedia (which I'm guessing you have activated).
However, we can convince the code that generates the <thead> to include the second header row by marking the second row up as <th> rather than just a <td>, as I did with revision 1011652960.: Judging from the table, those cells ARE headers. That is the cause. If they are not indicated to be headers then things can break when guesses need to be made. This is expected behaviour. Please markup cells that are headers as headers, not doing so is an accessibility problem.

—TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]