Template talk:WikiProject Korea/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Some possible templates

(moved from the main project page)

This article is within the scope of the Korea WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Korea and Korea related articles. If you would like to participate you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

This article is within the scope of the Korea WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Korea and Korea related articles. If you would like to participate you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

This article is within the scope of the Korea WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Korea and Korea related articles. If you would like to participate you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

	This article is within the scope of the Korea WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Korea and Korea related articles. You are welcome to join the project Tasks to do: purge {{to do}}

Rewrite of template

Less than 50 pages use this template, so I boldly replaced it with my rewrite for {{korean}}. Eventually {{korean}} could become a redirect to this template. YooChung 10:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Some notes about the new template...

I've made several edits to the article in the last day or so, most of them minor cosmetic changes, but also to make the template support the new assessment scale. I've pretty much reached the limits of what I can do with it, but there were several other things I noticed or were unsure about:

Problem with NA class — See here. The template is trying to categorize the page, but it has nowhere to go. The obvious solution would be to create categories for this purpose, but is there really any point in doing so? How useful would such categorization be? Is it possible to have the template not categorize these pages? (As a side note, should pages be added to the Housekeeping working group via the template?)
Category:Korean military history task force articles — While our template is categorizing articles by quality, the Military History template (which also adds pages to this category) is doing it alphabetically, so there's an obvious conflict which should be resolved. It seems like most other projects sort articles alphabetically anyway, so should we scap our system and follow everyone else?
Unstable articles — Is there any way to get the template to display a message of some kind when an article is flagged as "unstable"?
Category:Korea-related Wikipedia tools — It seems like templates and such are already being placed directly into this category. With that in mind, shouldn't this template be categorizing pages elsewhere?
"Tool" class — Following on from the above, it seems like only templates (i.e. pages in the template namespace) are being classed as "Tools" (note: I removed several pages from this category which were clearly "Project" class). Wouldn't it be better to rename this as "Template" class?
Additional classess? — Specifically, "Dab" for disambiguation pages, and "Redirect" for redirects. I don't know how much of a need there is for this, but I've seen other projects use them. Perhaps these are sufficiently covered by "NA", but it's something to consider.
Working group categorization — Although we already categorize articles by working group, the Military History Project (and as a result, our own w/g) also categorizes working group articles by quality (see here). Is this something we should be doing as well, or is it too much? PC78 23:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
1. I added #ifeq parser functions so that if NA is given, it doesn't go through categoriazation. Thanks for letting me know the problem.
2. For working groups, I guess we can sort alphabetically. But for Category:Korea-related articles by importance, I prefer the current method, since it makes really easy to prioritize what we need to work on.
3. I was thinking about changing the background colour to #F8BABA - User:Edene/Sandbox. What do you think?
4. My opinion is that we should remove categories directly placed and put {{Korean}} on its talk page. I am not so sure how to interpret your last line - are you suggesting taking of categorizations from {{Korean}} and add to categories manually?
5. Most tools are template, since they are to be included in other pages. Can you think of anything that may be placed in tool-class other than templates? I can't...
6. Since there's no Korea-only-related Dab pages, Dab class wouldn't be necessary and {{Korean}} shouldn't be placed in Dab pages. In addition, I can't think of why we need to place {{Korean}} to redirects. eDenE 01:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. Cheers!
  2. That's fine, we'll stick with what we've got then. But I think that particular category needs to be addressed, if possible.
  3. Nice try, but's not obvious what the red means. I think a lot of users would look at that template and think it was supposed to be red.
  4. No, I meant shouldn't the template be placing "Tool" class pages into a seperate category? I'm not sure what you meant by your first line! :) Do you mean templates shouldn't be categorized using [[Category:Korea-related Wikipedia tools]] at the bottom of the page? If so, I'd have to disagree. It's a perfectly valid way of categorizing, perhaps more useful since it allows templates to be divided into subcategories, something the template can't do. I'm suggesting that we keep these two methods of categorization seperate.
  5. So do you agree to renaming "Tool" class to "Template" class, or not? :)
  6. Well, I could show you one or two Korean-only dab pages if I felt so inclined, and redirects sometimes have talk pages for a variety of reasons. But no, I don't think there would be nearly enough examples to make these classes necessary; N/A class should suffice for those that exist. It was one of the more idle suggestions on my list. PC78 01:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
    1. Thanks :D
    2. I'll try to sort alphabetically for military history wg
    3. I see what you mean. However, those subcategories are somewhat useless at this point. Maybe I'll add sub-classes, like Tool/Dab, which will place the template under Category:Korea-related Wikipedia disambiguation tools.
    4. I guess it really doesn't matter. You decide. :)
    5. Agree eDenE 17:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion for the unstable articles: how about doing something similar to what Template:WPBiography does when you add "living=yes" or "activepol=yes"? (I wouldn't have the slightest idea how to implement it though.)
As for Tool class, I think I'll go ahead and rename it as Template class, but I want to address the categorization issue first. It's something I need to look at in more detail, though. PC78 01:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

That is a great idea, but I would say "no."

Judging if the article is unstable or not is totally WikiProject Korea's POV. Adding extra box may confuse other people.
It is very common to group WikiProjects' banners (e.g. 1, 2). If grouped, the unstable box will also included in WikiProjects shell, which isn't nice.

I guess it is our best to simply add some text in the current template, but I can't find any good place. How about simply adding a word like this: This unstable article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a project to build and improve articles related to Korea. We invite you to join the project and contribute to the discussion.? eDenE 03:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think some text explaining what is meant by "unstable" would be preferable, if possible. How about adding another box under the quality and importance ratings? I'm all out of ideas on this one, though, so I'd be happy to go ahead with your suggestion. PC78 10:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hold that thought for a second. Some project templates have additional parameters such as "needs-infobox" or "needs-image" etc. Perhaps doing something similar would be of benefit to the Housekeeping w/g? PC78 11:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This template is broken

The accompanying template appears likely to be the cause of thousands of unreasonable lks to Ban Ki-moon, tho it's not obvious to me how it does so. (It, or something it calls, may need NOINCLUDE tags.)
--Jerzy•t 15:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem was Wikipedia:WikiProject_Korea/Assessment which is transcluded in this template. Ban Ki-moon was one of the examples for importance scale. I temporarily removed all examples to solve this problem. Thank you very much for finding out this problem. eDenE 15:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Another problem...

A few weeks ago I noticed in the assessment log that a significant number of articles were being marked by the bot as having their ratings removed, even though the ratings were still intact on each article's talk page. And sure enough, the number of Korea-related articles as counted by the bot has gone from 3684 on July 19, to 3399 as of today.

I raised the issue here (discussion continued here), which has revealed another problem, this time with Category:Stub-Class Korea-related articles which gets stuck in a continuous loop when you try to progress beyond the second page (this problem seems to occur with other categories as well). I suspect these two things are connected, and it has been suggested that something in this template is the cause.

I've tried fixing the template so that it sorts articles alphabetically, but (for now at least) it doesn't seem to have made the slightest bit of difference. Can someone who knows more about the template take a look? PC78 18:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)