Template talk:Articles by Importance

Formatting issue

Can this be reconfigured so that the "WikiProject Physics articles by importance Refresh" is on one line? There are a few projects that have long names that get mashed up in three or more lines. --Jeremy (blah blah) 06:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the caption is designed to take up just the width of the table. Maybe we could get around it by just adding it as text below the table. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that would look neater. --Jeremy (blah blah) 14:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Bottom

Although the {{AbQ}} template automatically removes categories that are empty, this template removes Bottom although it is populated. Apparently, here on the template page it is visible; however, on all other pages where {{AbI}} is used AND Bottom is populated by the template malfunctions, and it doesn't show. I think I'll tweak the code to be like {{AbQ}}. That's rather Bold of me! Prapsnot (talk) 03:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Magic I did two edits, undid them both, now everything's working fine! Haven't got clue! Prapsnot (talk) 06:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Request that the logic be updated

I would like to request that the logic of this template be updated to include:
<includeonly>{{#ifeq:{{{importance}}}|nocat||{{#if:{{{importance|}}}|[[Category:{{{parent|{{{topic|}}} articles by {{lc:{{{impn|importance}}}}}}}}]][[Category:{{{importance|}}}-importance articles|{{{sort|{{ucfirst:{{{topic|}}}}}}}}]]|}}}}</includeonly>
This will allow this template to automatically generate the importance categories like the Cat importance template does. --Kumioko (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

This template is for placing on the parent categories. It's the {{cat importance}} template that you should be using if you want to add the categories automatically. -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so your saying that this template should not be on the sub categories as it is being used in Category:Top-importance Arizona articles? --Kumioko (talk) 19:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. This template goes on Category:Arizona articles by importance, not the six categories like Top-importance, High-importance, etc. The cat importance template goes on all those sub-categories, because it auto-categorizes. --Funandtrvl (talk) 02:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Got it thanks. I will fix that. I am in the process of standardizing the way parameters and categories that are used for the projects supported by WPUS. --Kumioko (talk) 02:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I was about to make the same request. I switched all assessment categories in WikiProject Addictions and recovery from Template:Category importance to Template:Articles by Importance because I thought this was identical but more useful. Why can't this replace Template:Category importance? Sondra.kinsey (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done No consensus ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 21:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Improper counts

Revision [1] by Waldir (talk · contribs) changed all occurrences of {{PAGESINCATEGORY:categoryname}} to {{PAGESINCATEGORY:categoryname|pages}}. I believe this was wrong for several reasons, but is perhaps due to incorrect documentation. Firstly, the documentation says that the |topic= parameter is required. It is not. For example, see the use in topic-less Category:Top-importance articles. These counts are now zero - they used to count all the top-importance articles across all WikiProjects. I think the change was misguided in that a category is also something that can be considered as top-importance, and should be counted as well. For example, Category talk:Contents indicates that Category:Contents is a top-importance category and should be counted. I will ask Waldir (talk · contribs) to respond, but please

1. Remove the |pages= parameter from {{PAGESINCATEGORY:categoryname}}
2. Change documentation to say that the |topic= is optional and if missing, the counts are across all topics

I could do these changes myself, but I don't know if there are downstream tools making use of these counts. Dpleibovitz (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello Dpleibovitz. Sorry for the late reply. I agree that there seems to be some ambiguity in the documentation for this system. Initially the assessment activities focused exclusively on articles, but indeed the scope has been expanded to cover other classes of pages, including lists, disambiguation pages, and even pages from other namespaces, such as templates and categories. This is of course a contradiction, since non-main namespace pages are, by definition, not articles, yet there is a class precisely for that: Category-Class articles. So as you say, categories can indeed be assessed by quality and importance, but that doesn't seem to have been weaved into the assessment ecosystem in a coherent manner.

Of course it would be easy to revert my changes to count subcategories, but that would only make the ambiguity worse. Perhaps part of the correct solution would be to change the assessment system's nomenclature, so that e.g. Category:Top-importance articles becomes Category:Top-importance pages, and so on. That seems like an uncontroversial change, but due to its wide scope (it would affect pretty much all active WikiProjects, IIUC), it would have to be discussed with the community to ensure everyone is in sync with the change and that it doesn't trigger edge cases of its own.

Unfortunately I don't have the bandwidth to lead such a discussion at the moment, but I'd gladly assist you in doing that -- please ping me if you decide to move forward with that and let me know how I could help.

Cheers, Waldir (talk) 09:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I've updated the template, so that if topic is blank, it counts the categories as well as the pages. -- WOSlinker (talk) 12:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I've updated the documentation to reflect your changes. Dpleibovitz (talk) 19:29, 14 September 2018 (UTC)