Jump to content

Template talk:Grading scheme/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Removing bias against online sources, and harmonizing with WP:V policy

I've changed the wording within A-Grade to correspond to the current wording of WP:V. At the same time, I've removed serious bias against online sources. Whether information is published via paper or websites makes no difference. What matters is independence, fact checking, and accuracy. Jehochman Hablar 09:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Talking of wording, it's crap throughout that table. Why doesn't someone fix it all? To start with, indicative and imperative moods are mixed up ("Provides a well-written, reasonably clear and complete description of the topic, as described in How to write a great article. It should be (?is) of a length suitable for the subject ..."). And ... um ... try "It is of suitable length for the topic". The whole thing is riddled with glitches. Tony 11:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Sample FA

Should the sample FA be added by the main editor/nominator of that article,[1] when it only recently passed FAC with copyedit objections? Of course, it didn't displease me TS was added back in April by an uninvolved editor, based on unanimous FAC support.[2] [3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope, not cool, but then, it's a natural instinct. Since Tourette was passed unanimously, I'll switch back to it. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 07:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
On second thought, I reviewed that FAC, so I'll hold until someone else even less involved decides to change it back. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 07:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I can think of several FACs that passed unanimously that could be used, but I also reviewed most of them, so will wait for someone else to change. But, a recently-passed FA, without a unanimous FAC, shouldn't be our sample, and for the editor to add it him/herself raises eyebrows ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
It's very disappointing that the article was promoted to FA status despite its generally poor standard of prose. This is typical of the director's careless attitude to this aspect of FACs. It's downright embarrassing to have this article paraded as an example of one in which "no further editing is necessary". Tony 11:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Upon specifying a project, why do the category links point to "List-Class <project> pages" and "NA-Class <project> pages" when very few, if any, projects use these conventions (based on Category:NA-Class articles and Category:List-Class articles)? --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 09:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Template linking consistency?

FA
A
GA
B
Start
Stub
Category
Disambig
File
List
Template
NA
Needed
Portal
???

Of the common classes used with article assessment (see the table on the right), it appears that all but four of the templates link directly to their associated parent category. For example, the B on {{B-Class}} links to Category:B-Class articles. Is this linking inconsistency caused by design or oversight? If it is an accident, I would propose the following:

Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 02:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it was by design. These templates were all created at different times and were never standardized to match the others. All of these templates are protected, so you need an administrator to do this (or to unprotect them temporarily and I could do this). There are also other changes that should be made to the common templates with categories at Category:Articles by quality (items crossed out have been completed):
--Scott Alter 03:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
How would any modifications to the main assessment templates (e.g., A-Class and such) would affect the number of them that can be displayed on Special:Expandtemplates? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 04:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure what your question is, but making these changes to the main assessment templates should not effect their display on any page other than Template:A-Class. The noinclude tags would not transclude to other pages. Instead of seeing the HTML used to format the cell at {{A-Class}}, you would see the actual formated cell (like {{Image-Class}}). --Scott Alter 04:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} {{FA-Class}}, {{A-Class}}, {{GA-Class}}, {{B-Class}}, {{Start-Class}}, {{Stub-Class}}, {{-Class}}, {{Needed-Class}}, and {{Portal-Class}} should be modified to display as a table when viewing the template pages directly. This should be done by adding this at the very beginning of the template: 

<noinclude>{|
!</noinclude>

and this immediately after the existing <noinclude>: 

|}

Additionally, {{NA-Class}} is missing the closing tag for the table, and it needs a |}. {{List-Class}} can be used as an example of a class that properly uses this formatting. --Scott Alter 05:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, the same question stands: Will making these templates bigger cause the large tables on WP:1.0/I to hit the 1 MB transclusion limit? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
While I have not seen any official documentation of such a transclusion limit, I do not believe it would change the bytes transcluded. The table coding I would like to include is entirely within <noinclude></noinclude> tags. All of this should be parsed before it is transcluded. If the transclusion limit included items within <noinclude></noinclude> tags, the first place to reduce the bytes is by removing:
{{pp-template|small=yes}}
----
'''''NB:''' This is not a stub template. Therefore, it is not to be placed on articles. It is used in assessment summaries for the WP1.0 project; see [[Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment]].''
[[Category:Classification templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]
This is standard in all of the -Class articles. If it were included in the transclusion limit, I'd imagine that this text would have been removed long ago. Adding my changes would still produce the same results when the template is put in Special:ExpandTemplates. --Scott Alter 05:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
The documentation is at Wikipedia:Template limits. Noinclude sections are counted, which is why the {{documentation}} template was developed. Making the templates longer probably is a bad idea; moving those comments to the doc page ps probably a good idea. There's no great need to view the templates directly, and a demo table could always be put on a doc subpage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

A-class symbol image

For those who may want to use it as a graphical element: Image:A-class-wiki-symbol.PNG.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Protected?

The template at the top of this page says the template is protected, but there is no actual indication that it really is, other than that template (i.e. no little padlock) --Thinboy00 talk/contribs 00:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:A-Class

{{editprotected}} Can an admin please add this image, (Image:Symbol a class.svg), to the A-Class template to resemble the FA and GA-Class templates. I ask this because A-Class is higher than GA-Class, yet lower than FA-Class, but there is no image for A-Class (unlike GA and FA-Class). -- LAX 17:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The message that was at the top of the page was wrong. I have removed it - the page is infact not protected. Davnel03 18:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Aah, the Template:A-Class is protected, but that template talkpage redirects here, hence why this has been posted here. In any situation, can an admin add the image to Template:A-Class? Davnel03 18:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Bad idea. If we must have an image for A-Class, let us have a unique one, not just a modification of the GA image. I am against any measure which serves to associate A-Class ratings with the GA process. Kirill 18:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Why do we need an image for A-Class? What's wrong with the letter A—I think that's pretty clear. I'm disabling the editprotected template, as it appears that this is not consensus. Pagrashtak 22:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Grading Template Needs Copy Editing

Would it be possible to get the text of the Grading template changed?

"Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then add comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article."

'and/or' isn't really valid so it's kind of funny to see it in a statement regarding grading of articles. Simply using "or" is sufficient in this context. Either that or it should be changed to "and/exclusive or" but even that is implied by a simple "or" while avoiding the awkwardness of reading "and/exclusive or".

This page also provides a quick synopsis regarding why and/or shouldn't be written http://www.geocities.com/thorin.geo/and_or_invalid.html

Wikipedia even has an entry about "and/or" http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/And/or —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.96.11 (talk) 14:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Done 206.47.249.251 20:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

New documentation sub pages

{{editprotected}} This is somewhat of a continuation of the above #Template linking consistency?, but the discussion has changed gears and brought about a new topic. I just created a new documentation page, designed for all of the -Class templates. The documentation page itself is located at Template:Grading scheme/doc/class, but it can not be properly viewed through that page. It is designed so that the one page can be used as the same documentation for all of the -Classes. The proper documentation link to use on the -Class templates would be {{Documentation|Template:Grading scheme/doc/class}}, and it would be placed directly on the -Class template pages in place of the current note. A sample can be viewed at Template:FA-Class/doc. Replacing the current note on all of the -Class pages with this will significantly reduce the pre-expand include size when the templates are transcluded. --Scott Alter 05:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

As per the trend to transclude documentation, and per the discussion above, could someone please go through all of the article classifications (listed at Template:Grading scheme/doc/see also), and replace the current documentation with this: 

<noinclude>{{Documentation|Template:Grading scheme/doc/class}}</noinclude>

So each of the templates would look something like this: 

style="background: #6699ff; text-align: center;" | [[Image:Featured article star.svg|14px|✓|Featured article]] '''{{#if:{{{category|}}}|[[:{{{category}}}|FA]]|[[:Category:FA-Class articles|FA]]}}'''<noinclude>
{{Documentation|Template:Grading scheme/doc/class}}</noinclude>

The {{pp-template}} and categories are within the transcluded documentation, so they can be removed. --Scott Alter 00:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The page isn't protected - you can make the edit yourself. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
This page isn't protected, but each of the -Class templates are. All of their talk pages redirect to here. A list of the article classification templates (all protected) can be seen here. --Scott Alter 16:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I made the changes. Sorry for the delay. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks good, and now the pre-expand include sizes have been reduced. They could be reduced even more by removing the "{{pp-template|small=yes}}" - this is also transcluded from the documentation subpage. --Scott Alter 20:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
The new preprocessor no longer worries about pre-expand sizes, and they aren't output any more. Try checking them to see what I mean. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Renaming Cat-Class to Category-Class and Dab-Class to Disambig-Class (their full names)

{{editprotected}} Currently, all of the classes, except for {{Cat-Class}} and {{Dab-Class}}, use same name for their page, class displayed, and category. Here are a few examples:

Template name {{Start-Class}} {{List-Class}} {{Template-Class}} {{Cat-Class}} {{Dab-Class}}
Display Start List Template Category Disambig
Category Category:Start-Class articles Category:List-Class articles Category:Template-Class articles Category:Category-Class articles Category:Disambig-Class articles

I would like to rename {{Cat-Class}} to {{Category-Class}}, and {{Dab-Class}} to {{Disambig-Class}}. Doing so provides consistency with the other classes, and is more intuitive for editors - the class they assign is the actual name of the class. Currently, the redirects are in the opposite direction. Making these changes will have no effect on any of the pages currently using either template, and it will not have an effect on WikiProject assessments or the WP 1.0 bot. This is evident by the 4 targets (to the actual template and the redirect for both classes) each having several thousand links. Performing these renames would also allow for the new, standardized documentation of the templates to link to the correct categories. --Scott Alter 03:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Half done - the category one is done. I'll move the other one later this morning. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Done. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Disambig isn't even its full name! StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 09:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Slight alteration to color scheme

Hey everyone! I'm proposing a slight alteration to the color scheme, here's a comparison:

FA
A
GA
B
Start
Stub
Category
Disambig
File
List
Template
NA
Needed
Portal
???
Featured article FA
A
GA
B
Start
Stub
Category
Disambig
Image
List
Template
NA
Needed
Portal
???

I think it's a little better due to the fact that it's not unbelievably fucking retarded! Let me know what you think. —Figure (talk) 02:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I think we prefer the current system thanks. Walkerma (talk) 02:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Walkerma. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
It's a wiki. I'm "we" too. —Figure (talk) 06:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
And with me that's four. There's no improvement in the proposed scheme, as the difference between all the colors is negligible, hence the colors lose their effectiveness. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Three, actually. Read more carefully. I guess my only question is, who is the target audience that can't distinguish between words without their being covered in garishly colored rectangles, and why are they editing an encyclopedia? "A" and "B" are different letters, doesn't that suffice to distinguish them? It would be nice to read a talk page without the visual onslaught on every single article. Why the insistence on deliberately bad design? —Figure (talk) 01:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Needed-class template needs linkage to its category, text-align, icons, and more

Here are a few requests. - LA @ 23:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

  1. The Needed-Class template needs a link to its categories.
  2. I am creating a table where I would like these text align:left NOT centered.
  3. I would like to turn off the star in the FA-Class and FL-Class templates and the circled plus sign in the GA-Class template.
  4. List-Class should be above Stub-Class (Lists can also be stubs).
  5. Not all classes are represented in the Grading scheme table: Future, Needed, Disambig, Redirect, Portal, and Image.
  6. Not all classes are represented in the Quality statistics table: Future, Needed, Disambig, Redirect, Portal, Cateogory, Image, Template, and NA.
  7. Needed-Class color to #cc2200 to match the color of a red link.
    1. Maybe.
    2. Use template substitution and CSS. Adding more conditionals makes the code bloated, and these templates are designed to use hundreds of times on a page, so they must be lean.
    3. Again, substitution. Using a switch to turn off the star would add unnecessary complexity to the template.
    4. List-Class is a non-standard class, as it is not an assessment of quality, but of article type. The exact placement is a matter of dispute.
    5. Future, Needed, Disambig, Redirect, Portal, Category, Image, Template, and NA-Classes are also non-standard classes.
    6. Ditto.
    7. Changing the color of Needed-Class to that value would make it too similar to {{Stub-Class}}, and makes a sharp color contrast with bluelinks, making the text hard to read. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
      1. In the table I want to create, all of the others are linked to the right categories, except Needed-Class which had no link.
      2. I can do it with 8 characters per template if I could edit them.
      3. Are those images really needed in these templates?
      4. Non-standrad classes need monitoring too.
      5. Ditto
      6. Ditto
      7. It was just a thought, though the more it hurts one's eyeballs the more likely one would create the article to rid oneself from hurt. :) - LA @ 00:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please add interwiki links for the following template:

Thanks --Jutiphan | Talk - 09:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done Happy‑melon 10:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Additional categories

{{editprotected}} I think that the non-standard categories parameters (i.e. List, NA, Template...) should not be to specify a category, but rather just be yes or no to indicate whether it should be included in the table, instead of if an example is given. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC) 

...
{{#if:{{{List_example|}}}|
<tr>
{{!}} {{List-Class|category=Category:{{#if:{{{List_cat|}}}|{{{List_cat}}}|List-Class {{{Project|}}} articles}}}}<br /><small>{{tl|List-Class}}</small>
...

↓ 

...
{{#ifeq:{{{List_cat|}}}|yes|
<tr>
{{!}} {{List-Class|category=Category:List-Class {{#if:{{{Project|}}}|{{{Project}}}}} articles}}<br /><small>{{tl|List-Class}}</small>
...
 Not done This page isn't protected, so you can just make the changes yourself. I did a quick database scan and found that 16 pages contain the "List_example" parameter with this template. Note that only 6 of those articles use List_cat (and none have List_cat = yes), so there might be some problems. You may want to ensure that those pages are not negatively effected with your change. Here's the 16 pages using List_example (with a note on which ones use List_cat, too)
Let me know if you need any help with it. --CapitalR (talk) 12:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I knew it wasn't protected, but no one was was answering, so thanks. I think I can handle it, I just did not know how to find those pages like you did. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


I changed the template, but now I was wondering why other classes, such as Portal & Redirect, are not listed? MrKIA11 (talk) 02:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering that too. I think I'll add Portal to the template (specifically because my main project of focus, Aviation, uses it), but I'll leave Redirect for someone else to add. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 01:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

B-Class template colour

{{editprotected}} After a lengthy discussion about colours here, we have determined new colours for the assessment scheme and there is strong consensus for the yellow currently being used for B-Class to be used on C-Class instead (this change has been made) and for B-Class to be changed to yellow-green (#c8fb7b), naturally we need an administrator to make the change. --.:Alex:. 12:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, this page isn't fully-protected. D.M.N. (talk) 12:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
The {{B-Class}} template is and it's talk page redirects here for some reason. --.:Alex:. 12:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Weird. Sorry, I never realised. D.M.N. (talk) 13:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 Done Nice. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 13:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

C-class noincluded

Now that c-class has been added to the assessment scheme, is there any reason why the c-class section in the template is still wrapped in <noinclude> so it does not show when transcluded? --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 10:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Because we haven't come up with a proper descrition yet. All of it is currently placeholder text. --.:Alex:.
That just about drove one of my fellow editors nuts yesterday because it would not show. That should have been done in a sandbox subpage or a least a note in the documentation. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 13:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Currently the template links to Category:NA-Class articles, but this is problematic for many WikiProjects which use alternative category names such as Category:Non-article Foo pages or Category:NA-class Foo pages. Although in the long term it would be ideal to standardise the naming of these categories, would it be possible in the short term to have this template link to such named categories? PC78 (talk) 16:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Redirect-Class

(Template talk page redirects here) {{editprotected}} By default this template should link to Category:Redirect-Class articles, not Wikipedia:Redirect, per other class templates and template documentation. PC78 (talk) 22:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Though I'm still not sure why we have a redirect class.... Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Portal-Class colour

The grey currently used for this class makes it difficult to see the "Portal" link once visited. I propose that the colour be changed to a lighter one. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I think the colours for all of the non-standard classes could do to be revised. The orange used for Category-Class is too similar to the colour of Start-Class, IMO. PC78 (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I do agree. However, my main concern is that horrible grey, as it obscures the view of the link in the visited form. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
How about red? bsrboy (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
That would collide with Start-Class, unfortunately... :( Not really much I can suggest... How about pink? weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I was just about to say that! I think you meant Stub-class, not Start-class there. It should be a bright pink and possibly changing the colour of template to a darker pink. bsrboy (talk) 22:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Then it would clash with the colors for the importance scale. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Not to mention that pink is used for Template-Class. PC78 (talk) 08:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
He suggested that Template class be bumped down to a darker pink. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 08:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Why not just use the darker pink for Portal-Class? Why mess around with Template-Class just for the sake of it? But as noted, conflict with the importance scale colours makes this a bad idea anyway. PC78 (talk) 08:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Portal
Portal
Portal
Portal
Portal
Portal
Portal

I've tried out some shades of gold and violet. bsrboy (talk) 12:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That's good! I think the second one is probably the best for usability; the others are still making it difficult to read the purple link. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 12:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah yes. I forgot about the purple link. If I think back to my art classes yellow is the opposite of purple, so I'll try the gold with even more yellow. bsrboy (talk) 12:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's much better :P Just watch that it doesn't clash with start-, C- or category- classes. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 12:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd quite like some admin input, because the template is protected. bsrboy (talk) 00:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You got it above :) But more input would be good. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
So which one is it? The second one? PC78 (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

GA before A

Still cant understand why Good-Article is worse than A-article. This goes against any logic. A-B-C classes should be next to each other. FA>GA>A>B>C... goes logical to me.--Kozuch (talk) 21:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You are right in saying that it is logical, but how would we assess it? We would have to make GA criteria stricter; A criteria a lot less stricter and B-class criteria less strict too. When the new C-class arrived, B-class got stricter, so changing it all again would mess everything up. Not to mention the GA reviewers... bsrboy (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Introducing C-class can be same mess as changing A<>GA. Cant understand this really... Renaming the both two could easily do the job - after all, name is just a FORMALITY.--Kozuch (talk) 20:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I fully support GA before A. Anyone can pass a GA, and there can be a broad chasm between GA and FA. A fills the gap, and several Projects have worthy peer review processes before promoting to A, for articles that are clearly somewhere in between GA and FA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Let us do something... logic should win here. EN wiki does not equal US (or UK) grading schemes...--Kozuch (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

What has that to do with anything? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

{{Unassessed-Class}} and {{-Class}}

I'm a little mystified as to why we have these two templates. Aren't they both the same thing? And if so, can they not be merged? PC78 (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editprotected}} The following templates should link to a default category, per other templates in this group.

Change {{Category-Class}} to: 

<noinclude>{|
!</noinclude>class="assess-Category" style="background: orange; text-align: center;" | '''{{#if:{{{category|}}}|[[:{{{category}}}|Category]]|[[:Category:Category-Class articles|Category]]}}'''<noinclude>
|}
{{pp-template|small=yes}}
{{Documentation|Template:Grading scheme/doc/class}}
</noinclude>

Change {{Needed-Class}} to: 

<noinclude>{|
!</noinclude>class="assess-Needed" style="background: #DCDCDC; text-align: center;" | '''{{#if:{{{category|}}}|[[:{{{category}}}|Category]]|[[:Category:Needed-Class articles|Needed]]}}'''<noinclude>
|}
{{pp-template|small=yes}}
{{Documentation|Template:Grading scheme/doc/class}}
</noinclude>

Change {{Disambig-Class}} to: 

<noinclude>{|
!</noinclude>class="assess-Disambig" style="background: mediumspringgreen; text-align: center;" | '''{{#if:{{{category|}}}|[[:{{{category}}}|Disambig]]|[[:Category:Disambig-Class articles|Disambig]]}}'''<noinclude>
|}
{{pp-template|small=yes}}
{{Documentation|Template:Grading scheme/doc/class}}
</noinclude>

Change {{Template-Class}} to: 

<noinclude>{|
!</noinclude>class="assess-Template" style="background: #ffccff; text-align: center;" | '''{{#if:{{{category|}}}|[[:{{{category}}}|Template]]|[[:Category:Template-Class articles|Template]]}}'''<noinclude>
|}
{{pp-template|small=yes}}
{{Documentation|Template:Grading scheme/doc/class}}
</noinclude>

Also add documentation and page protection template to {{Merge-Class}}: 

<noinclude>{|
!</noinclude>class="assess-Template" style="background: #40acf8; text-align: center;" | '''{{#if:{{{category|}}}|[[:{{{category}}}|Merge]]|[[:Category:Merge-Class articles|Merge]]}}'''<noinclude>
|}
{{pp-template|small=yes}
{{Documentation|Template:Grading scheme/doc/class}}
</noinclude>

Cheers! PC78 (talk) 01:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I see - I'll do that. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Done. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

"Current-class" and "Future-class" nominated for deletion (withdrawn)

Resolved
 – Moot.

Both of these templates and their categories have been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 September 8#Future-Class and Current-Class. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorting behaviour

Hi,

I wonder whether it would be possible to prefix the text in each of these cells with an invisible digit so they sort by quality, rather than alphabetically, in sorted tables (such as the one at WP:CEX). For example, we could use the code 

<span style="visibility:hidden">a</span>Stub

for stubs, 

<span style="visibility:hidden">b</span>Start

, and so on up the grading scale. Are there any drawbacks to such a suggestion?

Thanks, Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 03:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:-type

Could someone create (and protect) Template:-type so that is it matches Template:-importance? I could guess but I'd rather not. I'm an admin so if anyone needs the protection part, message me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is it necessary? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's showing up at Special:WantedTemplates but really just for consistency. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Class and style parameters for -importance templates

{{editprotected}} Please update the following: in the templates in the first column, replace the text up to text-align: center;" with the text in the second column, as has been done with the -class templates.

Template Code
{{High-importance}} class="import-High {{{class|}}}" style="background-color: #ff88ff; text-align:center; {{{style|}}}" |
{{-importance}} class="import- {{{class|}}}" style="background-color: transparent; text-align:center; {{{style|}}}" |
{{Low-importance}} class="import-Low {{{class|}}}" style="background-color: #ffeeff; text-align:center; {{{style|}}}" |
{{Mid-importance}} class="import-Mid {{{class|}}}" style="background-color: #ffccff; text-align:center; {{{style|}}}" |
{{NA-importance}} class="import-NA {{{class|}}}" style="background-color: whitesmoke; text-align:center; {{{style|}}}" |
{{Top-importance}} class="import-Top {{{class|}}}" style="background-color: #ff00ff; text-align:center; {{{style|}}}" |

Thanks. —Ms2ger (talk) 16:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Not done: - Page is not protected. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
No it isn't. The templates I asked to change, however, are. —Ms2ger (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 Done--Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 18:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
BE CAREFUL!! You managed to break every single one of them :D <trout/> Happy‑melon 18:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding images

{{editprotected}} (redirected here for Start and Stub, but not C) Per the recent change to {{A-Class}} please change the code at {{Stub-Class}} to 

<noinclude>
{|
! </noinclude>class="assess-Stub {{{class|}}}" style="background: #ff6666; text-align: center; {{{style|}}}" | [[File:Symbol stub class.svg|Stub-Class article|14px]] '''{{#if:{{{category|}}}|[[:{{{category}}}|Stub]]|[[:Category:Stub-Class articles|Stub]]}}'''<noinclude>
|}
{{pp-template|small=yes}}
{{Documentation|Template:Grading scheme/doc/class}}
</noinclude>

and the code at {{Start-Class}} to 

<noinclude>
{|
! </noinclude>class="assess-Start {{{class|}}}" style="background: #ffaa66; text-align: center; {{{style|}}}" | [[File:Symbol start class.svg|Start-Class article|14px]] '''{{#if:{{{category|}}}|[[:{{{category}}}|Start]]|[[:Category:Start-Class articles|Start]]}}'''<noinclude>
|}
{{pp-template|small=yes}}
{{Documentation|Template:Grading scheme/doc/class}}
</noinclude>

I've filed this after a discussion with User:Kirill Lokshin and seeing a similar request at {{B-Class}}. Thanks. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 04:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think adding those icons is necessary, or worth the extra loading time in assessment tables. While I can see the reasoning for A-Class (more than one person reviewing A-Class articles and such), I don't think the other classes merit icons. I'd really want a change to a set of templates used on 1.6 million articles to be discussed more thoroughly than this. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 07:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I also oppose this change. I can kind of see the point in doing this for A-Class (though I don't necessarily agree with it), but adding icons to the other classes is wholly unnecessary and complete overkill. PC78 (talk) 10:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the above, icons for something this basic and commonplace just slows the servers down. I can live with A-Class icons, though - they are rare and kinda special. Walkerma (talk) 13:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
My apologies. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Grading_scheme/Archive_3&oldid=849548000"