Template talk:Grading scheme

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

Entrées vs Appetizers

Greetings all,

Every great restaurant has both appetizers and entrées. They can both be fantastic, but one expects tha appetizer to be somewhat smaller than an entrée. Similarly there are articles that are meant to delve deeply into a specific subject, and there are others that whet the appetite about the various aspects of a broad subject and then directs the reader to main articles.

It seems that in this grading system, the appetizer will always be graded as a stub, no matter how perfect it is. Now this wouldn't necessarily be bad except the stub shows up lower than a start. This doesn't seem fair. Am I missing something?KitemanSA (talk) 05:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

No that's not really so. An article is a stub if the content is jumbled and generally useless. Length doesn't affect grading. If an article is perfect it's generally a FA. Do you have an example of a "perfect" article that is classified as a stub? This might be better served if moved to WT:ASSESS §hep • ¡Talk to me! 05:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Kiteman on this point. It seems that articles who are right on the edge of notability have less notable content that should be included than articles that are clearly and indisputably notable. For example, the page Throstur Thorhallsson, which is a stub in chess right on the edge, in my opinion, of notability will have less content than an obviously notable article like Dog EVEN when both articles are expanded to the point where they should contain everything that an encyclopedia article on each subject should. The article on Thorhallsson is obviously incomplete, but I cannot imagine that more than a few more paragraphs on him and maybe an illustrative game can be justified as belonging in an encyclopedia. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to change the colour of Project-Class

At present, {{Project-Class}} uses the same colour as {{Template-Class}}, however I feel it would be preferable to give it it's own unique colour. With that in mind I would like to suggest that we change the colour to this:

Project

which is the same colour used for the border of message boxes such as WikiProject banners (#C0C090). Thoughts? PC78 (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that's not the best color choice. Do I have a better idea right now? No. But I certainly don't like this one. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 20:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You mean you feel it is in some way inappropriate or you just don't like it? PC78 (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I mean I feel it looks like the color of some animal feces. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like very light animal feces to me... --.:Alex:. 21:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

:) Well... granted, I may not choose to wear a shirt of this colour, but for our purposes here I don't think we need be too picky. It doesn't clash with anything else, anyway. If anyone has any other suggestions then by all means speak up. PC78 (talk) 21:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

In all honesty I think this might need to be discussed more widely. Not all of this, because it isn't used as widely, but it's still used by on a good deal of pages. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Would that be the correct venue for discussion, though? Project-Class is one of the non-standard grades (and a fairly recent addition at that), and I don't think they're covered by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team (though I may be wrong). Heck, it's not even a protected template. PC78 (talk) 21:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It does deal with the "obscure" assessments over there as well, AFAIK. A template talk page just doesn't get that many visitors. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 01:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps. Heck, I'm not even sure why Template talk:Project-Class redirects here when it isn't used in the grading scheme template. PC78 (talk) 11:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

As there were no alternative suggestions forthcoming, I have implemented the animal faeces. Martin 11:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Template:Cat class should be changed as well, to match. Martin 11:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The same colour you mean? No, I think all classes should have their own distinct colours, unless we were go the other way completely and give all of the "namespace" classes a single colour. I wouldn't be opposed to changing {{Cat-Class}} to something less similar to {{Start-Class}}, though. PC78 (talk) 11:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand. Template:Cat class is not the same as Template:Cat-Class. I am not suggesting we change the colour of category-class, but just to update the project-class colour on both templates so that it is consistent. Martin 13:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah-ha, fooled by the dash! :) Ignore my ramblings then... PC78 (talk) 13:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

...except to say that perhaps {{Project-Class}} and should be protected like {{Category-Class}} and others, as it now has nearly 1000 transclusions. PC78 (talk) 13:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It does bother me that anyone can edit that template. Should we take it to WP:RPP? Also, just because someone suggested the change there was no consensus that that was the best color choice and was made in haste. Because someone suggests a change does not mean it should be acted on immediately. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 18:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair comment, though someone arbitrarily chose pink as the colour when the template was created nine months ago. As for protection, I see that {{Future-Class}} and {{Current-Class}} are also unprotected. It would probably be wise to request protection for all three. PC78 (talk) 01:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Image-Class → File-Class?

Now that the namespace has been renamed, would it be an idea to change the name of Image-Class to File-Class? PC78 (talk) 08:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually that would be a very good idea, as obviousl ynot all files related to WikiProjects may be images, and we certainly don't want to create classes for each type of file. --.:Alex:. 19:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Just redirect {{Image-Class}} to {{File-Class}}? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... won't project banners also need to be adjusted to accept class=File as a valid parameter? Then there would be project categories to rename as well. I still think it's worth doing, just might be a bigger job than first anticipated? PC78 (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Eventually categories, banners, etc. would need modified. For instance all BannerMeta templates accept both image and class as good values and sorts them as image-class. A good deal of banners rely on a system of #switches that modify the text and template that appear. If the banners are modified then all images, etc. that have been assessed as class=image would need to be changed to class=file. IMO the simplest option would be to modify all banners to accept image and file as classes (if the projects let us), have a bot go around switching class=image to class=file, remodify the templates we edited earlier to remove class=image functionality afer a time and most of the recategorization should be simple once image can no longer be a valid class. Projects that still wish to use image can still use the template and the updated banners would use the file template and categorization. A change like this would probably be best discussed at the council with as much input as possible from all projects. §hep • ^Talk 01:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Dunno how widely something like this would need to be discussed; ultimately it's a fairly cosmetic change. Depends how many projects are using the class, I suppose. PC78 (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Appears that almost 400 projects have an Image-Class category correctly sorted to WP 1.0. There's also the possibility of banners that use the meta template haven't created the category yet and other projects that don't participate in WP1 but still use image-class. §hep • ^Talk 01:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

On principle I think it is an extremely good idea, but there are huge technical issues to be resolved. By editing WPBM you can alter the categorisation of 700 banners with one edit, but if you change them to all categorise into Category:File-Class Foo articles instead of Category:Image-Class Foo articles then you immediately need four hundred new categories. Which comes first, chicken or egg? WPBM already accepts |class=file, it's just a question of which is the alias, 'file' or 'image'; both would have to be supported for the forseable future. It's a good idea generally, but is quite technically involved. Happy‑melon 14:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

As a first step, I have boldly redirected {{Image-Class}} to {{File-Class}}. Assuming that sticks, stage 2 is to begin a transition from using Category:Image-Class Foo articles to using Category:File-Class Foo articles. Happy‑melon 18:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You might also want to add the following to MediaWiki:Common.css. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

.mediawiki .assess-file     { background: #DDCCFF; }

Damn, I thought I'd remembered that when I first added the classes. Oh well, it's in now. Happy‑melon 22:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Can a bot take care of the categories? PC78 (talk) 00:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it could, and I even have code that could be trivially modified for it, but that's a rather large step for which we'll need a larger consensus. Happy‑melon 00:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Redundant "Classes"

There is a big problem with the assessment scale system, and that is classes. A class is normally a grade that shows what quality the page is of. However, the inclusion of non-quality classes interferes with the main point of assessmnet in general. For instance, List-class. There are MANY lists on wikipedia, with varying quality; ranging from short, badly written and cruft filled lists to the long, well-written and sourced lists that have achieved FL. The point of assessment is to show readers and editors what kind of shape the page is in and also shows if the article can be trusted better as a source. The same with lists, or so it should be. Most lists are currently being labeled as "List" class. What does this say of it's quality? Of it's reliability as a source/reference? Nothing. All it shows is that it's a list. Grading a list using the normal assessment scale can help readers understand if the page is well-written/factual, and for editors to know if it needs a bit more work (From GA to FL for example). It may increase the workload of assessers, but it gives the editors and related project the information they need to improve them. I do agree with replacing image class with file class, as there are many different types of files, and organizing them into one would decrease the needed work to make a class for each seperate file type (Sound, image, etc.). However, I do not agree with calling these types "Classes". I propose adding, along with quality/class and importance, a "Type" section, stating the type of the page (Article, List, File, Redirect, Project, etc.). This would help remove the "non-quality" classes and move them into a more appropriate section. Yes, this would involve editing every single project template, but removing this problem is far more worth it (and it will get rid of the complaining as well), especially when dealing with the quality of a page. If the page doesn't need quality (Like a project or Category), then it would get the NA-class, with the appropriate type added in. A concern some of you may face is clutter. The type could be added right below the importance, placed in the same way the upper two are. THis is an important issue that NEEDS to be addressed. Fixing this mess will ensure a more organized wikipedia all around, and will hopefully improve the quality of many pages that are wrongfully classified. Thank you for your time.  Dylanlip  (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou for your comments. However, I believe you have somewhat misinterpreted the main purpose of the assessment scheme. The scheme is not, as you suggest, aimed primarily to inform readers, or the assessment would be shown on the article page; we have had numerous discussions to the conclusion that only the FA/FL star should be shown on the article page. Article assessments are arbitrary, unilaterally implemented and usually lag behind the actual quality of an article; each grade has subtle criteria that will not be obvious to the lay-reader; as such, readers cannot rely on the grade of an article, and should not be expected to do so. The assessment scale is aimed entirely at the editing community, and has two main purposes. Firstly, it is used by the WP:Version 1.0 Editorial Team to select quality articles for static releases. Secondly, it is used by WikiProjects to co-ordinate and prioritise their work.

In this context, it is apparent that modifications to the scale should only be made when they would improve its utility and ease-of-use for those two groups. I don't believe that the changes you propose would necessarily do so. There is no accepted quality scale for list articles: there are no "Good list" criteria, no "B-Class list" criteria, no "A-Class list review" departments. It makes no sense to grade lists on the full quality scale unless all this infrastructure is in place, and there is no evidence that it would be a net benefit for the projects using the scale to create and maintain such additional bureaucracy. Similarly, replacing "Image-Class" with "Image-Type, NA-Class" is pure make-work unless there is a tangible benefit to be gained from the transition. Images, like other non-article content, cannot be assessed on the stub/start/c/b/ga/a/fa quality scale, so there is no disadvantage in that scale being unavailable. What you are essentially proposing is that every non-article page is marked as NA-Class on the quality scale and that a whole other scale is created to compensate for that loss of semantic clarity. That is completely unnecessary. Happy‑melon 18:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic with the above comment up to a point. The likes of Template-Class, Category-Class et al have got sod all to do with article assessments; personally I'd rather lump anything that isn't an article into NA-Class and do away with the rest, but I suspect that's a minority opinion. :) But I'm also against this idea of adding a third "Type" section, which I've already seen implemented in some banners. Why do we need anything in the banner to tell us what namespace we're in? It all seems a bit pointless to me. PC78 (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

A quick question about archives

Has there ever been any thought on adding an "Archive-class articles" classification? This would be useful on the many archive pages across WP. Just a suggestion, --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 03:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

What advantage would it have to the wikiprojects involved over and above either Project-Class or NA-Class? Happy‑melon 08:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit request to -Class and -importance templates

{{editprotected}} Can someone please update the following templates with the code in each respective sandbox:

• {{Top-importance}} with {{Top-importance/sandbox}}
• {{High-importance}} with {{High-importance/sandbox}}
• {{Mid-importance}} with {{Mid-importance/sandbox}}
• {{Low-importance}} with {{Low-importance/sandbox}}
• {{NA-importance}} with {{NA-importance/sandbox}}
• {{-importance}} with {{-importance/sandbox}}
• {{-Class}} with {{-Class/sandbox}}

In each case all this basically does is create a default link to the main category for each importance/class type, which will make them consistant with all other -Class templates such as {{FA-Class}} etc. Other changes are the removal of code defining the colours (these are now defined at MediaWiki:Common.css) and updated documentation. PC78 (talk) 01:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done Let me know if there are any problems. --CapitalR (talk) 12:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed change of colour for Portal-Class

Current	Proposed
Portal	Portal
#ddb1bc	#CC8899

About a year ago, a concern was raised that the dark grey colour used for Portal-Class makes the text a bit hard to read, especially when the colour of the text turns purple after the linked page has been visited. The discussion trailed off without any changes being made, but as this is a perfectly valid issue I would like to raise it again. :)

I've tried out a number of different colours to see how they look alongside other class/importance colours and when set against the background of a banner template, and settled on puce which is quite distinct from anything else we currently use. Alternative suggestions are, of course, welcome. Thoughts? PC78 (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

{{class example}}

Support — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Happy‑melon 18:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yummy, looks like beetroot. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget {{Portal-Class}}. I'd edit it myself except I can't :P Tothwolf (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I mistakenly thought that all these were using {{classcol}} now. Is there any reason why they aren't? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

More to the point, why are they not all using {{Class}}? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK {{Class}} is not compatible with the individual -Class templates. PC78 (talk) 18:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, yes, I knew that really ;) But the td versions should be. I'll have a look into it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You are right. The category parameter is not compatible. However there is no reason why they can't all use {{classcol}}. I believe the definitions in MediaWiki:Common.css are not being used now, but I have asked happy-melon for clarification. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

That's probably a good idea. {{Class}} uses {{Classcol}}, as do all the -Class td templates; it would probably be prudent for the -Class templates to follow suit, then colours need only be adjusted in the one place. PC78 (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Please don't do that; now all the templates will have multiple parser function calls that are unnecessary and which will slow down the display of the summary tables. :( Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Hmm, I'm not sure whether this is the problem you're making it out to be. The aim of this was for consistency, and to avoid the need to change multiple templates the next time it is agreed to tweak the colour of a certain class. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

This change started causing problems in the WP:1.0/I pages. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed colour changes for Merge, Category & Template-Class

Current		Proposed
FA	Merge	Merge
#9cbdff	#add8e6	#add8e6
Start	Category	Category
#ffaa66	#ffdb58	#ffdb58
Mid	Template	Template
#ffc1ff	#fbceb1	#fbceb1

At a glance, the colours used for Merge and Category-Class look pretty close to those used for FA/FL and Start-Class, while the colour used for Template-Class is identical to that used by Mid-importance. In a bid to get each Class type using it's own distinctive colour, I would like to propose the changes as illustrated in the table to the right. No radical departures from the colours we're already used to, just a bit of refinement. :) Alternative suggestions (should anyone have any) are of course welcome. Thoughts? PC78 (talk) 16:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Question Is this really the most appropriate place to discuss these changes? I know the talk pages redirect here, but as pointed out before, this template doesn't even mention a lot of these classes! I don't really have a better solution though ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Dunno, really. Last time I posted comments at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment and Template talk:WPBannerMeta linking to the discussion, but only you and Melon had anything to say so I've not bothered this time (I can do, though). Template talk:Cat class, maybe? Village Pump? I can't see it being worth an RfC. PC78 (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should retarget all those redirects to Template talk:Class. I like the changes, and I approve of the general shift towards more pastel colours; some of the old colours (Cat, Merge and Current in particular) are really rather glaring. Happy‑melon 16:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I also support the changes. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I've posted a link to this discussion at a few of the places mentioned above. Where the discussion is held is less important than people actually knowing about it, after all. :) PC78 (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I guess Template talk:classcol is the place, since that is the template which will be changed! I would still wish for a more descriptive name like class color or class colour, but I suppose the name was chosen to avoid the American/British thing? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but I imagine there aren't too many eyes on that template with it being relatively new; it doesn't even have a talk page yet! :) "col" was chosen primarily because of the old -Class col templates which it was meant to replace, but yes, it does also neatly avoid "the American/British thing". PC78 (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Although unless I'm much mistaken, we're all three of us Brits... perhaps we should strike a blow for proper English before anyone notices :D Happy‑melon 19:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Too late, I noticed! XD I support the color changes, just so you all know. *goes off to study {{Class}}'s source in preparation for a new feature suggestion* 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 19:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Start

Category

C

I noticed, don't do that. :P The problem I see is that having a trillion talk pages where it is possible to discuss the same thing ends up in discussions always being missed (yay for ForestFires!), so when the single-class templates were created, they were all redirected to a central location. If I were to change the redirects, it would be to Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment, but even that is meh...

Back on topic: I don't mind the new colors, although Category now looks like it lies between C and Start Classes.. Template is also close to Start as well. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair comment about the C/Category/Start colours, less so with Stub/Template. You could also say that the proposed colour for Merge-Class falls between FA and A, but ultimately there are only a finite number of colours to play with. ;) I can have another look, though, see if I can't find something a bit more distinctive. PC78 (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If you are playing with the colors anyway, I noticed the colors used for File and Needed are difficult to distinguish on some LCD displays. I found if I tilt the display I use regularly File seems to have more of a violet hue, otherwise it looks more gray. It could be I just have a screwed up display but I'm probably not the only one. Tothwolf (talk) 15:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

PC, are you still looking at these colours, or shall I implement the proposed changes to Merge, Category & Template? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Nah, go ahead. I tried out a few more colours and came up with #F0E68C for Category-Class, but that looks like it lies between B and C-Class, so I'd rather stick with my first choice as it's closer to what we have now. It's not like anything is set in stone, so if anyone has any better ideas further down the line then they're more than welcome to put them forward. PC78 (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Overhaul

I've got a proposed new version of this template in the sandbox. It's not finished yet, but I'm looking for feedback. Here are the differences:

• Uses a subtemplate for each row to make the code much tidier
• Width of each column is not stipulated. This makes for a more balanced look IMHO Reinstated - see below.
• Displays the icons for each class in a separate column Removed due to protest.
• FA and FL rows split to allow more particular wording for featured lists
• FL-Class moved down to be with List-Class Under discussion
• Removes the {{-Class}} links - I can't see the point of these
• Uses the new {{class}} template (no functional difference there)
• Uses HTML table code

There's a couple of things I haven't worked out yet. Any suggestions would be great.

• FA and FL class share some rows and I'm not sure how best to implement this. Now irrelevant, see above.
• I don't know how to convert {{Grading scheme/table}} into HTML code. Done.

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Since you've split FA & FL into separate items, it might be better to also show List by default as it looks a little odd with just FL at the end of the list. The other thing I was wondering about is the |Project= parameter. Would it be better to call it |topic= so that it is consistent with things like {{cat class}}? But since the current version of the template already uses it, how about something like {{{Project|{{{topic|}}}}}} ? -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done both. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Or set the trigger for FL to the same as list. -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I would rather keep FL where it is (with FA) for consistency with assessment tables and {{cat class}}. I also think the "icon" colum is rather superfluous, not least because many of the icons are not commonly used. Otherwise it looks good. :) PC78 (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

1. Agree with automatically displaying List-Class. I don't know of any projects which don't use it now.
2. Splitting FA and FL: to me it is illogical to have FL up there where it is interrupting the article quality scale. It makes more sense with List, surely? I take your point about the assessment tables ... although {{cat class}} could easily be changed ;)
3. What? You don't like the icons? Apart from the category icon (which I agree is a bit rubbish) I think they're great and make the page more attractive.
4. File/Image-Class and Project-Class should probably get a mention, with their own trigger parameter.

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding FL, one could also argue that it is illogical to split the two Featured classes. ;) Surely I have commented on the class icons before now, but I am still against their proliferation and believe that icons for FA/FL, A & GA are more than sufficient. I would prefer it to remain that way in this table, particuarly as the other icons are not used in project banners or {{cat class}}. Either way, I find it unnecessary to give them their own columm in a table where space is at a premium. PC78 (talk) 20:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Icons have gone. I'm very sad to lose them, although I agree that space is at a premium. Let's see if we get any other comments about the position of FL. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

So if we had FP-class (featured picture - why don't we have that class I wonder?), you wouldn't want that next to Image-Class? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Dunno, we don't have it (nor a Featured-Portal Class) so I don't really have an answer for you. ;) PC78 (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, with the new template I could create FP-class in approx. two minutes, and then you can answer the question. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but Would It Be A Good Idea?™ Would FP stand for "Featured Picture" or "Featured Portal"? Unless there's a genuine need for it I wouldn't bother, though I detect a certain level of facetiousness to your comment. :) PC78 (talk) 22:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

(Warning: thinking out loud ahead, I understand the previous conversation wasn't *entirely* serious =) ) I think probably if these were ever to be implemented, "FF" (short for Featured File) should be used for Featured Picture, since then it could also apply to Featured Sounds (and any other featured content in the Image/File NS). Needless to say, that would also take care of any conflict between abbreviations for Featured Pictures and Featured Portals. And now I must ask... why don't we have Featured Templates? There's templates out there doing some really crazy $#!+... 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 03:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I love it! You know about featured redirects don't you? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

But of course! I saw it on the same day that I voted for Pedro. =D 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 07:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Having second thoughts about the width stipulations. Probably the reason it was there, was to stop the columns shifting when you reveal the collapsed information. I guess I'll have to put those widths back in ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

 Implemented. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• The use of class for two purposes both quality and type I have always found inappropriate. Before there was just lists where this was a problem now there are other types. Would it be better to have Quality of FA/GA/A/B/C/Start/Stub and Type of Article/List/Template/Category/Portal etc SunCreator (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

  It has, and it is just not necessary. Templates, disambiguation pages, categories and such are not assessable, hence having a three-dimensional assessment space would be inefficient and in cases silly ("Start-Class Redirects"?). We're doing fine with the quality/importance matrix that we've been using so far. (Lists are the sticking point, as some projects assess them, others use the List-Class shortcut to not do it...) Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Have redirects been considered. SunCreator (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

"Future"-Class description

Hi there. I added a row for the new (optional) Future-class but we all know that my English is not perfect so I'd appreciate it if someone could check it and/or rewrite where needed. Particularly, I wrote it with Doctor Who articles in mind (where it is used at the moment) and needs to be generalized. Regards SoWhy 12:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I found about 10 (or so) projects which uses future class (Baseball, Cycling, Films, Tropical Cyclones, Albums, Alien, College football, Doctor Who, and a few more). Of those, only Dr Who has set the |future=yes parameter, most of the others uses a custom grading template instead. G.A.S^talk 13:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Change article

The current good article is ACC Championship Game, it is now a featured article, could someone please change it to a good article? I tried, and it didn't really work out. Thanks. Fingers^OnRoids 01:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It appears to be listed currently as a good article that is part of a featured topic, and the College Football project lists it correctly as GA-Class. The templates seem to be in order, except for the WikiProject ACC banner (which may or may not accept assessments, I don't know). Looking at this I can't see any recent edits. If you want an edit made, can you be specific about the change you need? Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 03:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I see the confusion. It should be 2008 ACC Championship Game and this is where the oldid still points to. Somehow I removed the 2008 in my edits earlier this month. Anyway, this is now a featured article, as Fingers spotted. I have changed it to Usain Bolt as (s)he suggested. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Modifications to the template

Hello, I made some modifications to the template including:

• I added several fields that were missing including Redirect-class.
• I re-ordered the items so that the match the other templates {{AbQ}} and {{Cat class}}.
• I added a switch so either File-class or Image-class can be used

--Jeremy (blah blah) 03:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Revision dates

I really feel that this template needs to be edited so that any project can use the "oldid", etc., fields. Without them, you have to continuously check to see if an example article is still a good example! I might try playing with it myself in the sandbox, but since I have no template experience, someone else could do it a lot faster and probably more effectively... — Skittleys (talk) 10:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

You should be able to specify it using the example parameters. For example:

FA_example={{oldid|oldid=205247985|label=Diocletian}}<br /><span style="font-size:90%">(as of April 2008)</span>

produces:

Diocletian
(as of April 2008)

I agree that it's not so user-friendly. We could probably improve this. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't fully understand what you're asking. Why do you have to continuously check? Aren't all of the examples specific versions from a point in time? Or do you want WikiProjects to be able to insert their own examplars? If so, that is an interesting idea, but one which would need a lot of work to ensure that all projects use the same standards. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 11:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the template currently supports project-specific examples and many projects use these. However there is not the same support for old versions which is used in the default examples. I believe this is what was being requested. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Missing classes

Please add This is missing Merge- and Needed-class articles. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

There are a lot of non-standard classes that are only used by one or a few WikiProjects. The new version of the bot allows WikiProjects to customise things to their needs much more effectively, so these things are now much more useful. Both of these classes are treated as non-standard (as I recall), and I have heard objections & complaints (even noms for deletion) about "Needed-Class" in the past. Rather than upsetting lots of WikiProjects that choose NOT to use these classes, we limit this template to just the "standard" classes. However, if you have found that the majority of WikiProjects are now actively using these classes, we'll certainly reconsider. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 16:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Pages with missing references list

A number of grading categories are appearing in Category:Pages with missing references list. I don't have time to dig into this at the moment. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 18:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Updating or checking the example articles

Hi there. I am new to this particular area of the 'pedia. My understanding is that the grading scheme is widely quoted as a guide around the place (eg. on Wikiproject assessment pages). But I also note some of the examples are from a year or more ago. Take Usain Bolt - it is still a GA and can be used as an example, but the current version is significantly different from the version linked at the grading scheme template. What is the procedure for checking and updating the examples? Do they get discussed here or somewhere else? Or do people just go ahead and do it? Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 00:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Please be bold and go ahead! You are right, they are probably due an update. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Update of Article Class examples

I noticed some of the example articles for the different Classes are no longer applicable, despite the (as of) statement. For example, Viewing the link for Usain Bolt comes up with a template error. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&oldid=291685224 . Additionally, many other articles date back from 2007-2009. Whilst the criteria may not have changed, what the Read expects("Reader experience") from a Wikipedia article over the last two years certainly has and I'm not sure those examples are good ones for the applicable class type. -- Aeonx (talk) 14:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Just realised, the post right before this mentioned the same thing. Sorry! -- Aeonx (talk) 14:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Give editors of pages a "suggestions" link for getting a better grade?

I made a new page somewhat recently Talk:Rockingham_Township,_Iowa and see I have a "C" grade in the Talk page.

I have made many revisions to the page, as have others, so I was hoping to see if someone could review the page again to see if it meets a higher criterion...

...however, I see no way to go about this.

Do graded pages get a new looking at once in a while? Is there a place to resubmit a page for a second/third look?

I couldn't find a way to do the above, except maybe to add a cleanup template or some such to it. I don't want to do that if I can help it, because I know when/if I see a page that has any kind of message on it for cleanup, or possibly unreferenced material, or anything of the sort, I run away fast.

If none of the above exists, perhaps a link can be added to the Grading Scheme page that will allow editors to re-submit their pages to the "B" grade and see if it can be changed or to see what else may need changing?

Something of the sort sure would be nice.

Thanks! --ErikVKing (talk) 23:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

"Actual practices"

In actual practice, "A class" articles are reviewed by WikiProject experts as in WP:MILHIST. FA articles are subject to promotion via consensus. This was confirmed to me in the last two days by multiple coordinators at WP:FA. If you disagree, please explain here. jps (talk) 03:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The criteria are different, wee WP:WIAFA vs. WP:WIAACA. FAs are considered higher than As, and they have been for a long time. Imzadi 1979 → 03:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Since A-level articles are reviewed by experts, the criteria are different, but they are not as described. "Considered higher" was never subject to consensus. They are just different. If you can prove otherwise, show the discussion. jps (talk) 03:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

A-Class can be awarded by any two editors agreeing on the article's talk page. FA-Class can only be awarded after a review through the FA process which requires spotchecks, source reviews, image/media checks and prose reviews in addition to consensus to promote as judged by the FAC delegates. That's much tougher than 2 editors agreeing to bump the assessment. Most WikiProjects lack a formalized ACR process; MILHIST and WP:HWY are rarities in that respect. In fact, most WikiProjects don't use A-Class at all. Imzadi 1979 → 03:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The difference is that the editors have to be experts. This isn't just "Good^2". Read the rules. The FAC process does not require expert review and usually is just random Wikipedians nitpicking who don't know anything about the subject. Show me the discussion where this is indicated to be different. jps (talk) 03:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't. To quote the applicable page, "An A-Class article should approach the standards for a Featured article (FA), but will typically fall short because of minor style issues. The article may need minor copyedits, but it should be comprehensive, accurate, well-sourced, and well-written. A peer review by project editors should find the article to be a viable candidate for FA status. Assessing an article as A-Class requires more than one reviewer. There are two methods available for doing this." By definition, A-Class is lower, not higher. Imzadi 1979 → 03:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The "applicable page" is wrong. Go ahead and show me the discussion where MilHist agreed to this. In fact, A-levels are distinguished by expert review. A-level and FA are simply different quality assurance schemes. jps (talk) 03:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As for your contention that the reviewers have to be experts, "For WikiProjects without a formal A-Class review process, the proposal to promote to A-Class should be made on the article's talk page. To be granted, the proposal should supported by two uninvolved editors, with no significant opposes. The review should also be noted on the project's discussion page." An I might remind you, that membership in a WikiProject, or even just participation in a project's ACR doesn't make the reviewer an expert, just an interested Wikpedian offering review comments. Imzadi 1979 → 03:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

It's a goal to which Wikipedians strive. In any case, the idealization is that members of a project are experts. That's what I see on the discussions on MILHIST anyway. Go ahead and show me a discussion if you disagree. jps (talk) 03:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, you want a MILHIST-based discussion, let's compare their specific A-Class criteria vs. the FA Criteria.

"A1. The article is consistently referenced with an appropriate citation style, and all claims are verifiable against reputable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations as appropriate." The analog at FAC is "1c. [The article is] well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate." That makes the FA more stringent ("high-quality reliable sources" vs. just "reliable sources" and "thorough and representative survey" vs. "accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge")

"A2. The article is comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and focused on the main topic; it neglects no major facts or details, presents views fairly and without bias, and does not go into unnecessary detail." vs "1b. [The article is] comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context ... 1d. [The article is] neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias." MILHIST combines two points from FAs into one, which is a basic policy expectation of all articles.

"A3. The article has an appropriate structure of hierarchical headings, including a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections, and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents." vs. "2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of: a. a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections; b. appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents." Again, a repeat of basic policy expectations on both fronts.

"A4. The article is written in concise and articulate English; its prose is clear, is in line with style guidelines, and does not require substantial copy-editing to be fully MoS-compliant." vs. "1a. [The article is] well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard. ... 2. It follows the style guidelines" which links to the MOS. In short, FAs have a higher level of prose quality, and they have to be fully MoS-compliant, but As at MILHIST may require some copy-editing to reach that goal.

"A5. The article contains supporting visual materials, such as images or diagrams with succinct captions, and other media, where appropriate." vs. "3. Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly" FAs have requirements related to captions that MILHIST As lack.

FAs also have criteria "1c. consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended. The use of citation templates is not required. ... 1e. stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process." There's two points FAs have to specifically follow that As don't.

On all of the above accounts, MILHIST A-Class criteria is either a lower standard than FAs, or they're equal to each other and to basic Wikipedia policy. Imzadi 1979 → 03:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The WP:1.0 team has never required experts to review the pages. It has only required two "impartial" or "uninvolved" editors to make the decision.

Any individual WikiProject is free to set its own standards. In theory, a WikiProject could set a standard that defines A-class as being any article that contains three inline citations and no spelling errors. MILHIST is free to require experts if it wants to. But you are not free to impose your impression of MILHIST's practice on two thousand other WikiProjects. This is the default, community-wide definition. If MILHIST wants to use a custom definition, then they need to change their definition, and only their definition. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• How does one distinguish between "Some editing by subject ... experts" and "No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available" without experts commenting in some form of process? Perhaps the mentions about experts should be removed since there is no actual mechanism to gauge that status anyway. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

How do I add a class to a project?

For some reason, the Wikiproject Heraldry & Vexillology has omitted the C class in the quality sheme. How do I add it? Arms Jones (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

First, a consensus within the project, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology, needs to be formed to change their assessment scheme; this has been discussed before at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology/Assessment. Then, as explained at Template:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology, the custom class mask Template:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology/class needs to be changed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. As you can see, most people there already think there should be a C class. Arms Jones (talk) 08:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Help! How do you find out the history number?

I want to update the "as of" bits in the Grading Scheme. How do I find out an old edited article's number code as in, for example, "|oldid = 401969600"?

Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 05:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I find that number by hovering the mouse over a version of an article from its history listing and read the number from my browser's status bar. Another method is to open the version of interest from the article's history and look at the address bar or select "Permanent link" from "tools". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Additional classes?

I'm the last survivor of WikiProject University of Florida, and I am trying to add additional classes for Category, File and Template. I have already added the article-class categories, and cannot figure out why they will not populate. Can someone help? I'm pretty sure there is a simple solution (if you know what you're doing, that is). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

{{WikiProject University of Florida}} uses {{WPBannerMeta}} where the documentation says that an extended quality scale – which adds category, disambig, file, portal, project, template – can be achieved by passing the |QUALITY_SCALE=extended (from {{WikiProject University of Florida}} instead of |QUALITY_SCALE=yes). Good luck. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Michael, I followed your suggestion and have inserted the recommended coding (see diff here). I have run the WP 1.0 bot twice and the Category, File and Template categories have still not populated, nor does the assessment table reflect the addition of the three optional categories. Any suggestions? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm stumped. Maybe you get a more informed response at Template talk:WPBannerMeta. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Michael. I think all of the categories and necessary optional coding is in place, but I am certainly no expert. I will raised the issue on the talk page for the other template. Thanks for your help. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Michael, your advice was spot on. Because of issues with the job queue, it just takes a while for the new categories to populate. Or so the folks on the other talk page are telling me. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 7 April 2015

The templates about importance currently contain a part such as {{#if:{{{category|}}}|[[:{{{category}}}|Top]]|[[:Category:Top-importance articles|Top]]}}
As can be seen for example on User:Veila#WPF: Importance scale, this causes inclusions to link to broken categories when category is missing, such as Category:Top-importance articles, which is both missing top-importance articles and filled with non-top-importance articles, since we have no (general) importance ratings. In the previous example, this should be simply {{#if:{{{category|}}}|[[:{{{category}}}|Top]]|Top}}
Chealer (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@Chealer: I'm not sure what you're asking for here, so Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Thank you. I am asking for the replacement of the else case ("[[:Category:Top-importance articles|Top]]" in the example above) with just the label ("Top" in the previous example) in {{Top-importance}}, {{High-importance}}, {{Mid-importance}}, {{Low-importance}} and {{Bottom-importance}}. I don't see how this could break, but I tried making a testcase page anyway. The result is broken even for the main version. I am not familiar with our testcases. Am I missing something? Or is this template simply unsupported? --Chealer (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I added some more testcases. The idea is to test every likely combination, using both the live template and the sandbox. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Thanks for the fix and for writing the test cases. I do not think other cases should be added. Is the request now clear? --Chealer (talk) 12:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

No, I still don't understand why this is necessary. Why is a link like Top undesirable, and what do you mean by "broken categories" and "both missing top-importance articles and filled with non-top-importance articles"? --Redrose64 (talk) 13:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Such a link is not undesirable "per se". These links are only undesirable in the current situation, where articles are not rated by importance. For example, if you search Category:Top-importance articles, you will likely find Pokemon there, since there is a WikiProject for Pokemon IIRC, and being part of Top-importance Pokemon articles means being part of Top-importance articles. This is what I mean by "with non-top-importance articles". The fact that x-importance articles includes all x-importance y articles categories can of course be fixed, but this will result in the x-importance articles categories becoming [almost?] empty, making the links useless. By "missing top-importance articles", I mean that many articles have not been assessed by any WikiProject, and that if article x is top-importance but only mid-importance to the WikiProject to which it is most associated, then article x will be missing in the category even if all WikiProjects assessed article x. If we ever get actual importance ratings, the links should IMO be restored once enough articles have been rated. --Chealer (talk) 23:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't really know what you're trying to say. You seem to be arguing that the parent categories (such as Category:Top-importance articles) should not exist or should be renamed. If this is the case, you're welcome to try WP:CFD although I'm not sure what kind of response you will get there. I don't think there is any need to change this template at this time. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@MSGJ: Renaming or deleting the parent categories are interesting possibilities which I may indeed explore. In any case though, the links should be removed when the parameter is undefined, until we get actual x-importance articles categories with significant elements, which would only happen in the long term. --Chealer (talk) 15:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I also don't wish to carry out this change on the request of just one person, so Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)