Template talk:Category importance

NA and No importances

Not sure if the NA and NO importance / priority are truely official entrants - I have just fixed the formating of the template "al la" {{cat class}}. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The entries on the template should be dictated by the list at Category:Articles by importance. No-importance is a subcategory of NA-importance. GregManninLB (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

{{Editprotected}}

Category:No-importance articles was deleted and merged into Category:NA-importance articles (which was wise - any article with no importance would obviously fail WP:N!). There are still some topical no-importance categories, but at this point they are simply variants of NA, and are in Category:NA-importance articles already (probably excepting a few stragglers). The template should be changed to do the same trick that it does with making Unassessed-importance be synonymous with Unknown-importance. This editprotected should be fulfilled after the one below, or the code substitution suggested below will undo the effects of this editprotected. No longer an issue. In the rare (if any) case of a project having both a NA and No category, they need to be merged and it's not our problem (i.e. it's a CfD matter, or a bold and speedy one, not a problem with/for this template). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the editprotected request as there does not seem to be any further problem. Please feel free to re-add it if necessary, including specific details of the edit requested. Stifle (talk) 11:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Missing importance

Can someone fix this template, so if importance= is not present, it defaults to unknown? Otherwise, it gets categorized in Category:-importance articles. --Kbdank71 16:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

{{Editprotected}}

Even better solution (since it shouldn't default to unknown, but simply be empty, and yes of course it shouldn't link to a bogus category): Just paste in the contents of User:SMcCandlish/Sandbox3 (fully tested code; see User talk:SMcCandlish/Sandbox3 for test cases). See Template talk:Cat class#Minor feature request for the details of what the change does (conforming change already made there). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 09:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

New parameter

Resolved

 – Parameter added.

{{editprotected}} Similar to the change made to {{Cat class}} (see the diff here), I'd like to add the option for parent categories that don't match child categories but still use this template. For an example of where this might be used see Category:Top-importance school articles and Category:WikiProject Schools articles by importance.

Old:

[[Category:{{{topic|}}} articles by importance]]

New:

[[Category:{{{parent|{{{topic|}}} articles by importance}}}]] 

Thanks, --Jh12 (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 18:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --Jh12 (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

New parameter please

{{editprotected}} Not all WikiProjects use the word importance. Some use Priority instead. A new parameter could implement this. (I know there is a {{Cat priority}} template but in my case I need a capital P so it was no use. And it seems better to merge all these together in one template.)

So please could you replace the template with the contents of User:Msgj/Cat importance. I have tested it (see User:Msgj/Sandbox1). The default value is importance so no existing pages will be affected. Thanks. MSGJ 14:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Disabled for the moment. "impn" makes no sense. Can we use a non-abbreviated form, please? :-) And perhaps a different word altogether? Setting |impn = priority isn't really intuitive.... --MZMcBride (talk) 19:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind what it's called. If you have a better suggestion, be my guest :) MSGJ 19:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Not done: Feel free to request again once you've all figured out what you want added. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I think my request is completely specific. Thanks. MSGJ 18:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

{{tl:Notdone}} I agree impn is not so intuitive. Ruslik (talk) 09:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done I did not know that it is used in BannerMeta. Please, do not forget to update documentation. Ruslik (talk) 13:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Category Sorting

Is it worth changing the category sorting to use the function so that it doesn't end up with lots of upper & lowercase items listed apart from each other in the categories. See Category:High-importance_articles for an example.

Changing the line:

[[Category:{{{importance|}}}-importance articles|{{{sort|{{{topic|}}}}}}]]

to

[[Category:{{{importance|}}}-importance articles|{{{sort|{{ucfirst:{{{topic|}}}}}}}}]]

would fix that.

{{editprotected}} Could the change described above be made. Thanks. -- WOSlinker (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Done--Aervanath (talk) 15:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

When the change I requested was made, a little bit of code was also removed, [1], |}}}}. Could this be added back in.

Done I think I got it right this time. I just replaced the whole line with your code above, instead of just the section of the line as you apparently intended. For the future, it's a better idea to create a sandbox version of the template, and then we clumsy admins can just copy-paste the sandbox wholesale onto the live version when you're done, to avoid this sort of thing.--Aervanath (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, it's working now. -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Bottom importance

{{editprotected}} Some projects are using a "bottom" option for importance. Would it be possible to add it to the template, perhaps as an optional item so it does not appear for projects that do not use it? Thanks. --GW… 21:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

As in importance=bottom? Do you have an example to cite? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 05:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:Bottom-importance and Category:Bottom-importance articles. --GW… 08:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Next time, please try to prepare the exact change you want in the sandbox. --Amalthea 17:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editprotected}} Can someone please change the top line of the template code to:

{| class="toc" style="table-layout:fixed; text-align:center;" align=center

This is to centre-align the text in order to maintain visual consistancy with {{cat class}}. Cheers! PC78 (talk) 13:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I can, but where does this ever make a visible difference? The table will always be as small as possible, right, so it should matter whether the text is aligned left or center? --Amalthea 13:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

No, the table is always stretched to the width of the page, so the difference will be visible everywhere. PC78 (talk) 09:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a browser difference then, cause it doesn't do that for me on Firefox 3.0.8 WinXP SP 2. What are you using? If I look at the styles in the table, there's nothing in there that would make it stretch to 100% either. --Amalthea 09:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Also not with Opera and Safari, but it does stretch with IE. Hmm. I think we should change that behavior then. --Amalthea 09:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting; I do use IE, actually. How does it look on your screen, then? Does each cell have a fixed width, or do they stretch to the width of the text? Perhaps I'm just used to what I see in front of me, but I rather like having the table fill the page. PC78 (talk) 09:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The latter, each cell is only as wide as the text (which is why I saw no difference between a center and a left alignment). And incidently, I would prefer to keep it small, if only to have the links stay close together (it looks rather weird on a 24" widescreen monitor otherwise) :)
I have changed the text alignment now for consistency with {{cat class}}, if we'd want to change the width of the table either way we should get some more input, both here and at {{cat class}}. I'm not using those navigation bars that much so I don't really care myself.
Cheers, Amalthea 10:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Changes

A little while ago {{Cat class}} was switched over to use the {{Class}} template. I've now done a similar thing to this template in the sandbox so that it uses the {{Impor}} template. Does anyone have any comments on it? -- WOSlinker (talk) 08:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent idea. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I wondered what you were waiting for, and then I realise the template was protected!  Done. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editprotected}} Can the template code be updated with {{Cat importance/sandbox}}? This will reverse the order of importance grades so they go from Top → ??? per recent changes to {{cat class}}. Cheers! PC78 (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Template appears to be adding articles of one project to general importance category

If you go to the bottom of Category:Low-importance articles right now you'll see a whole bunch of direct members of that category coming from the Shirley Jackson WikiProject. It looks to me like it's because of this template, but I can't figure out why it's going wrong. Would anybody be able to figure out what's happening? -- numbermaniac (talk) 11:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Someone had used the template on a category talk page instead of the category page. == WOSlinker (talk) 11:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Rewrite

I've done a rewrite of this template in the sandbox to harmonise it with {{category class}}, mostly because the visual difference when used side by side was bugging me. :) The new template should behave exactly the same except the |impn= will no longer be supported, though in reality it isn't used anyway nor is there any genuine need for it. See Template:Category importance/testcases for examples. Unless anyone objects I'll switch to the new code in a week or so. PC78 (talk) 15:17, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done No objections to the above, sandboxed template is now live. PC78 (talk) 10:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Possibly empty category

Thanks for the change, @Funandtrvl. Quick note that I fixed some 60 pages (sorry for that little edit summary screw-up) where that template was already used, since the notice would show up twice after your edit. 1234 kb of .rar files (is this dangerous?) 16:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)