Template talk:Category class/Archive 2

Image class
Fantastic template! I was wondering if "Image" class could be added. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 11:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Great, thank-you. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 09:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

New class: Needed
For all articles that are currently redlinked, a project template can be placed on the talk page to indicate the article needs to be started. Just a thought. - LA @ 20:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Added. - 52 Pickup   (deal)  13:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a bad idea since all such talk pages will get deleted under Speedy delete - Talk pages whose corresponding article does not exist. Also, Requested articles is to indicate that an article needs to be started. GregManninLB (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Many might, but not all. While I agree that talk pages without an article of any kind should be deleted, the Needed-Class articles that I have seen in the past are not non-existent articles, but redirects. The "Needed" classification here indicates something like a new article that has the potential to grow out of a current article. For example, for a long time the article Kingdom of Bavaria was simply a redirect to Bavaria and the redirect was classed as Needed. Now the article exists.  52 Pickup   (deal)  18:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess I should also point out that I am not the creator of "Needed" class, I've seen it in action for a long time. I simply added it to this template. 52 Pickup   (deal)  06:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

redirect class
I was wondering if Redirect class could get an appearance on this template. I am reluctant to test this myself on the live template incase I stuff it up. The colour for redirect seems to be grey. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Needed-Class? and a request for a new class to be added
What is the point of the "Needed-Class?" The post above says that you could add a banner to a nonexistent page so that projects can know what pages are needed, but this is paradoxical because that talk page would be Speedy Deleted under G8 - Talk page of non-existent page. Currently the only article in all Wikipedia who has this class is Talk:1986 in Zimbabwe which is actually a redirect. I believe that this should be removed as it serves no purpose at all. Any thoughts?

Also, I was wondering if there could be an addition for Non-Article (or NA) class pages (i.e. Category:Non-Article-Class Green Bay Packers pages)? I know of a lot of projects who use the NA-Class, so I think it would be useful. Any thoughts? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs)  03:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * We use NA-class on WikiProject Ships -specifically at - so we would certainly love to see Non-article added! --Kralizec! (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah we would also need to make sure we create a naming convention (Non-article topic pages, Non-Article-Class topic pages, Non-article-Class topic pages, etc) Just a note.   « Gonzo fan2007  (talk ♦ contribs)  16:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * We have a use for the Needed-Class (I am going to implement it soon) in WikiProject Anthroponymy. Say, right now Barack redirects to Barack Obama. Say, in future we plan to have an article about the given name Barack. To point out our intention we would place Needed-Class template on the redirect's talk page. Note: I mistakenly used the Future-Class for this and will change it all to Needed as soon as I have a minute. Yury Petrachenko (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

NA-Class and Redirect-Class
editprotected

Could someone please add these two class types to this template? Thanks! - LA @ 06:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Im not sure Redirect-Class is needed. There are so many redirects, and other than their initial creation, dont really need to be watched and categorized by WikiProjects.  I support the NA-Class though.   « Gonzo fan2007  (talk ♦ contribs)  06:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In the WP:AFC project we tag the redirects with the project tag, as they have been specially requested by contributors, and we wish to keep a count of it. The reporting tools list them OK, its just the link is not on this template. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Gotcha, it doesnt hurt to add it! :-)  « Gonzo fan2007  (talk ♦ contribs)  03:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You can look at Category:Redirect-Class_AFC_pages to see the contributions. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅  « Gonzo fan2007  (talk ♦ contribs)  06:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * On a side note, you will need to rename Category:Class-exempt AFC pages to Category:NA-Class AFC pages or Category:NA-Class AFC articles for the template to work. If you need some help, I can do it.   « Gonzo fan2007  (talk ♦ contribs)  07:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Fan of Gonzo, the redirect link has appeared. A joke request was for a featured redirect, inspired by the featured list, but please don't add that one yet! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Your welcome Bartlett, and yeah Ill hold off for now on the featured redirect class! lol  « Gonzo fan2007  (talk ♦ contribs)  05:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there some reason that Template:Redirect-Class appears as part of the Template:Cat class as shown at the top of the page, but is excluded from the See also section? Dbiel (Talk) 05:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Future-Class
editprotected I think it would be good if this was added to the template. D.M.N. (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you expand on what you mean, maybe showing a link to a category and explain what future-class is used for (I have never seen it used before, which is why I ask)  « Gonzo fan2007   (talk ♦ contribs) 20:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think he is refering to the subcategories at Category:Needed-Class articles. However, I found few articles using "Needed class" and Category:Needed-Class articles and all its subcategories seem redundant of Category:Unassessed-Class articles. GregManninLB (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's a a link to the category. Future-Class refers to events that have not yet occured, e.g. 2010 FIFA World Cup. D.M.N. (talk) 18:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Future-Class makes no sense. Say I went made 2010 FIFA World Cup a WP:GA, what would its class be?  Of course it would be GA and not Future-Class.  That's because assessment is used to assess the articles themselves, not the events that they cover.  Future-Class doesnt help with assessing the article at all.  Now granted this is an issue for the WikiProjects, but I would be opposed to adding this class to the template so other Projects dont adopt it.   « Gonzo fan2007  (talk ♦ contribs)  18:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I very strongly doubt a future class article would be made GA or even FA. D.M.N. (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Turns out WP:1.0 have actually accepted both Future-Class and Current-Class as valid, and like Redir-Class and Template-Class and List-Class, they are indications that the B, C, A, GA, etc. stuff does not apply. Yet.  This came up at the TFD I filed (see below). As soon as no longer current, the assessment would be changed to something normal. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 23:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The point being that an article is not rated on the event itself, but on how well the article is written. Right now 2010 FIFA World Cup is a Start-Class article, not a Future-Class.  The assessment scale was created to assess how complete and well-written an article is.  I mean if we have Category:Future-Class articles, shouldnt we have Category:Present-Class articles and Category:Past-Class articles? (which would cover every single article in the project and basically make the assessment scale useless)   « Gonzo fan2007  (talk ♦ contribs)  18:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not what it is for. They are poorly documented right now, but they mean that the article cannot be normally assessed yet, because it is too unstable. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 23:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, the Future Class is pointless. As it is now, it evaluates articles in a different dimension, unrelated to the quality assessment. Yury Petrachenko (talk) 18:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur as well; both Future Class and Current Class should be removed and their subtemplates (and categories) WP:TFDd. These are not article assessment categories, and there are already templates for flagging articles that are about current and future events and thus require constant updating and re-checking. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 18:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)  WP:1.0 has actually plans for these, apparently. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 23:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Gonzo_fan2007 that Future and Current "Class" have nothing to do with article assessment, but they might server a purpose as a sub-class so that an article could be rated as both "future" and rated as to quality. Dbiel (Talk) 19:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Repeat: We already have other templates for this (both current- and future-events tags). Even more importantly, none of the template systems that have anything to do with article class assessments can handle two different class parameters, so this simply doesn't work. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 21:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Current-Class
Category:Current-Class articles seems to be in the same boat as Category:Needed-Class articles. In this case, an article is "current" (recent information) until it no longer is "current". Category:Current-Class articles seems to be a not so useful class rating for articles. GregManninLB (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, delete this. This and Future-Class completely misapprehend the nature and purpose of the article assessment system. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 18:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)  Keep this one and finish implementing it too; WP:1.0 wants it. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 23:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion (withdrawn)
Both of these templates and their categories have been nominated for deletion at Templates for deletion/Log/2008 September 8. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 21:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn; turns out that WP1.0 does now include these in the extended assessment scale (though I have yet to find them documented as such), so they should actually be fully implemented in this template and at others that make use of the class sub-templates. I'm not thrilled about it, because they pollute the clear purpose of the quality assessments, but oh well. My opinion vs. consensus at WP:1.0 ... —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 23:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Portal Class
editprotected Template:WikiProject Illinois uses a portal class to populate Category:Portal-class WikiProject Illinois pages. There is a bunch of "Portal-class" subcategories atCategory:Portal-Class articles. GregManninLB (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you explain what edit you would like done? --- RockMFR 16:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi RockMFR. Category:Needed-Class is not a good idea as noted here. Category:Portal-Class articles is a widely used article class category. Replace

--><!-- This should allow the template to link to Category:Non-article Foo pages, which are fairly common (see the contents of Category:NA-Class articles). PC78 (talk) 03:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅, everything looks in order. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 04:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed change
At present the template lists class categories in ascending order (Unassessed → FA). Would it not be more sensible to reverse the order and start with FA-Class, as per Grading scheme, therefore placing a greater emphasis on those articles of a higher quality?

Any thoughts? PC78 (talk) 13:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit needed to /doc usage section?
Current text:
 * The Image, Template, Category, Disambig, List and Needed links will only be displayed if the category "class-Class topic articles" exists for the respective classification.

It looks to me that Redirect and Portal need to be added to this list.

An example is WikiProject Schools that does not have categories for redirect or portal and the cat template displays without those entries. see Category:Template-Class school pages Dbiel (Talk) 06:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm confused. I've looked at the link you provided: Portal-Class and Redirect-Class aren't there. PC78 (talk) 11:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess you are confused, or I did not make myself clear. You are right, they are not there and that is my point. The doc section currently states that they should be there since they are not included in the list of optional classes.  The doc section needs to be changed to read:
 * The Image, Template, Category, Disambig, Redirect, Portal, List and Needed links will only be displayed if the category "class-Class topic articles" exists for the respective classification. 
 * Note: I used bold for the changes for this talk page only to make it easier to see what is being changed.
 * Actually I have edited the doc page as now feel bold enough to do so. I believe that the template is working correctly, but the doc page did not support how the template is actually working. Dbiel (Talk) 17:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, I'm with you now. PC78 (talk) 18:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Project-Class and Merge-Class?
Can we get these added? Then there'll be a clean sweep - rst20xx (talk) 21:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So that would mean adding, say:

'''

'''
 * and

'''

'''
 * Can someone do this? rst20xx (talk) 20:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, Portal-Class needs its second colour changing from whitesmoke to #808080 - rst20xx (talk) 23:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅, on both counts. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 02:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * - rst20xx (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Minor feature request
If class is missing, or present but empty, then the code there should not attempt to make a category link. This would allow use of the template at Category: Topic articles by quality  pages and other places, without categorizing the extant page in a category that doesn't and shouldn't exist (namely  ). If a value is given but is gibberish, it should continue to redlink the bogus category, as this is a good visual indicator that an error has been made. An alternative to this proposal would be nocat, in case the redlinking is desired for when the parameter is simply empty. Don't care which, as long as it works. :-) —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 00:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)  Oh, and it shouldn't link a cat. to itself, as it does on  Category: Topic articles by quality  ; I've never had occasion to do it, but I'm pretty sure you can tell what page a template is on, but doing a namespace   and then a pagename  . —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 01:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've implemented and tested all of this at User:SMcCandlish/Sandbox3 (you can just copy-paste it over the original); test cases are at User talk:SMcCandlish/Sandbox3, and feel free to edit that for verification of functionality, as it suggests in the fourth test. I did not bother with complicated namespace/pagename code, since all one has to do is leave off class entirely, include it but without a value, or make it nocat and it will keep  Category: Topic articles by quality  from categorizing themselves. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 04:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've implemented and tested all of this at User:SMcCandlish/Sandbox3 (you can just copy-paste it over the original); test cases are at User talk:SMcCandlish/Sandbox3, and feel free to edit that for verification of functionality, as it suggests in the fourth test. I did not bother with complicated namespace/pagename code, since all one has to do is leave off class entirely, include it but without a value, or make it nocat and it will keep  Category: Topic articles by quality  from categorizing themselves. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 04:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Done
 * Please check and make sure it's working? Thanks. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Working fine for me!
 * Same change needed at Cat importance, but with importance instead of class, of course. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 08:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Code and test cases at same userspace locations linked to above. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 09:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's already done. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 09:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Temp. = Temporary
I used to think that Temp was a link to temporary pages - Sandbox perhaps. Having discovered it really means template pages may I suggest that the word template is used instead. There is room for it. MortimerCat (talk) 10:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * While it does make it a bit longer, I think the clarification would be a good thing. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 10:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thats two votes in favour (hint hint) MortimerCat (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅, per no objections (thanks for reminder MortimerCat). — Huntster (t • @ • c) 01:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * and thank you for performing the edit. ++ MortimerCat (talk) 02:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)