Template talk:Grading scheme

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment to see what this is all about.

Template-protected edit request 1 September 2017[edit]

Add table sort values as per this guide to all the standard article assessment categories:

This way, when you click "sort" on the "assessment" column of a table containing articles, page views, and assessments, instead of sorting based on the alphabetical order of the quality categories (A→B→C→FA→FL→GA→Start→Stub), it will sort based on the article quality (FA→FL→A→GA→B→C→Start→Stub). See User:CJK09/Assessment/U.S. National Parks for an example of what I'm talking about. CJK09 (talk) 16:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. It's only semi-protected. —MRD2014 Talk • Edits • Help! 16:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've reopened the request. I'm not requesting an edit of {{Grading scheme}}; I'm only posting on this talk page because the templates I would like to be edited all have talk pages redirecting to this talk page. To be clear, I am requesting edits, as explained above, to the following templates: {{Stub-Class}}, {{Start-Class}}, {{C-Class}}, {{B-Class}}, {{GA-Class}}, {{A-Class}}, {{FL-Class}}, {{FA-Class}}. These templates are all either template-protected or fully protected. Thanks, CJK09 (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fixing request templates. —MRD2014 Talk • Edits • Help! 16:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Never mind, I've re-closed the request as I just realized the relationship between these templates and {{Class}} is more complex than I had realized. I'm going to make some tests in my sandbox, and then once my proposed outcome is working I will make a new edit request.

Protected edit request on 12 October 2017[edit]

Please implement the sandbox versions of the following templates, which use the {{c}} template to avoid Multi-colon errors:

The other templates in this category are not cascade protected, so I can edit them directly as a template editor. --Ahecht (TALK
) 18:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 All done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 26 December 2017[edit]

{{File-Class}} has an unpaired bold (''') tag. I assume the closing tag would go after |File]]}}.
Anomalocaris (talk) 10:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done- it doesn't appear to have any practical effect on the testcases but mismatched quotes are a bug waiting to be tripped over, so - done. Cabayi (talk) 12:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 30 July 2018 (1)[edit]

Please remove the ''' in '''{{#if:{{{category|}}}|{{c|{{{category}}}|Top}}|[[:Category:Top-importance articles|Top]]}}''' as they create a false double bolding. Kind regards Neufund (talk) 19:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done for now: Neufund, I made this change in the sandbox for that template and the bolding seems to have disappeared in the testcases. Setting to answered=yes for now until there's a proposed fix for that. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see what's going on. We need to ensure that wherever the templates are used, that they appear in the header row of a table. This wasn't the case for the testcases when I checked. Interestingly enough, this template also seems to appear in some places where it's in a data row; I saw some places where there was an additional font-weight rule to make it bold, and some places where there wasn't. In general, we're going to have to be certain that every use of this (and the other importance templates with edit requests on this issue) appears in an appropriate location. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for commenting, Enterprisey! However, as I've realized, the problem unfortunately still persists, as can be seen here, for instance. Regards--Neufund (talk) 21:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Enterprisey: I'm sorry but I still didn't quit get why it shouldn't be possible to simply fix the formatting in the relevant templates? In any case, the ''' are too much, as in each of the affected templates, there is already a ! at the beginning of the relevant [= first] line with the expression in question. Hoping for your enlightenment--Neufund (talk) 20:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By "false double bolding" I assume that you mean that the bolding is superfluous when a template like {{top-importance}} is used in a table header cell, since header cells are boldfaced by default. However, it's also used in table data cells, which are normal weight by default but we still want the text to be bold. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Redrose64: Thanks for your reply! So, are you saying that there is no way to generally fix that? I mean, if you look at the relevant line !</noinclude>class="import-top {{{class|}}}" style="text-align:center; background:{{Importance/colour|top}}; {{{style|}}}" |'''{{#if:{{{category|}}}|{{c|{{{category}}}|Top}}|[[:Category:Top-importance articles|Top]]}}'''<noinclude>, you'll see that, as I already stated, we have a ! at the beginning of the line as well as ''' marks. Now, in the "table data cells" you refer to, is that line used without the !, so that the ''' become necessary there, or not?--Neufund (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, the bolding is necessary for those situations when the cell is marked up with | instead of !. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, thanks then!--Neufund (talk) 22:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 30 July 2018 (2)[edit]

Please remove the ''' in '''{{#if:{{{category|}}}|{{c|{{{category}}}|High}}|[[:Category:High-importance articles|High]]}}''' as they create a false double bolding. Kind regards, Neufund (talk) 19:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done StevenJ81 (talk) 16:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reverted myself. Didn't read the preceding one carefully enough. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 30 July 2018 (3)[edit]

Please remove the ''' in '''{{#if:{{{category|}}}|{{c|{{{category}}}|Mid}}|[[:Category:Mid-importance articles|Mid]]}}''' as they create a false double bolding. Kind regards Neufund (talk) 19:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hiding unused classes such as A[edit]

A lot of WikiProjects ignore the A-class rating in their grading scheme. While there is the option to mention that in the example parameter (something like "This WikiProject does not use A-Class"), I think it would be beneficial to have another parameter that allows you to omit it altogether so that it doesn't show in the chart for that particular WikiProject. I looked through the talk page history and didn't see any past discussion on this. Thoughts? Other ideas? --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can hide it by adding
|A = hide because it is triggered only if the value is explicitly set to yes. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 12 July 2021[edit]

In Template:A-Class, please remove the interlanguage link [[da:Skabelon:A-Klasse]]. It redirects to a template that is already connected by wikidata, so it is redundant. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 09:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done firefly ( t · c ) 10:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Start class, expanded description[edit]

As of July 4, 2008, the expanded description for Start class includes this sentence: No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted.

That might have been true in 2008, with whatever state the speedy criteria were in at the time, but it is no longer true. A number of the criteria might apply to an article that is Start or better class. I propose that sentence be removed. (It's currently being cited by a new editor as a reason their article cannot be CSD'd.) Schazjmd (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Schazjmd: The link is to the Articles section of the CSD page (the A criteria). This would mean that any of the G criteria could still be used. If we consider the eight A criteria in more detail, most of them (A1, A3, A5, A7, A9 and A11) would normally be used only on articles that are too short to qualify for anything other than Stub-class. The other two (A2 and A10) both cover redundancy, and I don't see how Start-class assessment would eliminate such duplication.
If somebody is deliberately assessing a poor-quality page as Start-class with a view to exempting the page from CSD, that is improper use of article assessment. Assessment is driven by the quality of the content, not the other way around. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Redrose64:, with all of those exceptions, it seems misleading to even mention speedy deletion in the assessment table. On the other hand, it hasn't been a frequent source of confusion or contention so far, and so it really isn't a problem that needs to be solved. Thanks, Schazjmd (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

my reverted edits[edit]

@redrose64: why do you think my updates are not an improvement? lettherebedarklight晚安 04:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Lettherebedarklight: why do you think they are an improvement? The burden is on you to support the proposed change in the face of opposition to it. Imzadi 1979  00:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@imzadi1979: i'm updating the articles to the current versions. why do you want pages that are stuck in june 2018? human is now a good article, ring-tailed cardinalfish is now c-class, Crescent Falls is now start-class, and future of the earth redirects to future of earth, and is no longer future-class. lettherebedarklight晚安 05:09, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps some of them have been regraded; but the versions that are actually linked were the stated classes at the time. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@redrose64: why do you want pages that are stuck in june 2018? answer this question. lettherebedarklight晚安 14:58, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The grading criteria haven't changed since then, why should the examples be changed? Besides that, if changing the criteria mean that another set of examples is necessary, then the selection should be via a group discussion where we all agree that such-an-example is definitely C-class and not Start-class. One person's choices falls well short of that. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:11, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The grading criteria haven't changed since then, why should the examples be changed?
because the grades of the articles have changed.
then the selection should be via a group discussion where we all agree that such-an-example is definitely C-class and not Start-class.
let's start that group discussion then.
lettherebedarklight晚安 14:15, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I mentioned above, the links in the table don't go to the current versions of the articles, but to the versions as they stood at the time of the grading. Have you tried them? Let's consider the links in the list for the four classes that you have named:
What does it matter that those four could have been regraded since those dates? I should not need to justify the continued use of these examples; instead, you need to demonstrate that the current examples are unsatisfactory. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
shouldn't the template have up-to-date articles? this is a widely used template, and will be seen by many.
human and future of the earth are easy: they have been deemed good articles, a grading that cannot be changed unless they are re-reviewed.
Crescent Falls, even the version linked in the template, is not a stub. a stub is described as A very basic description of the topic, which that article is not.
i will admit that ring-tailed cardinalfish could still be a start-class. wonder if @horsesizedduck can chime in. lettherebedarklight晚安 08:25, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Human is presently, GA-class, its current version cannot be used as an example of a B-class article. Similarly Future of Earth is also GA-class. Please stop wasting time. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:15, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i really don't get why you want outdated articles. lettherebedarklight晚安 01:49, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your argument comes down to this: change for the sake of change. That is not how Wikipedia works. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
no, i want the articles displayed here to be in their current state, not some revision 4 years ago. lettherebedarklight晚安 01:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Stability in the selections, since they link to historical revisions, is a good thing. Unless the criteria change, there's no need to change the selections. I know you feel otherwise, but no one else seems to agree with you, so this isn't isn't like to change. Imzadi 1979  01:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We shouldn't link to the current version of any article, because it could get substantially changed, just seconds before someone clicks through to see what an example of that class is. Imagine that someone blanks most of Human, and in the few seconds between when that happens and it gets reverted, someone clicks on the link to see what a (now) GA article is supposed to look like. That would be very confusing and misleading, right? Or imagine that we link to a stub, and someone expands it, so that it's now a pretty good article with lots of details. Before we notice and update this template, someone clicks through to see the current version of the article. They could be looking at an article that has 16 paragraphs, 10 sources, and three sections, and we've told them that it's a stub.
To prevent that problem, we're always going to link to a specific revision of an article. Which revision, and which article, is something we can discuss, but it will always be a specific revision. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that Crescent Falls is a poor example of a stub. IMO a good example will have:
  • six to nine sentences (because of the rule of thumb that stubs have ≤10 sentences, while still showing that they don't have to be extremely short)
  • no section heading in the body of the article (because of the rule of thumb that stubs have no "structure")
  • 4+ sources (to show that the number of sources does not result in a stub reaching Start-class)
  • a picture or infobox (ditto)
Low-set ears is a currently popular (~1700 page views per day) stub that meets my suggested conditions, but there are probably others that editors would think more closely represent the ideal stub. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, just change the stub to Low-set ears. It is a better example. --Noebse (talk) 00:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]