Template talk:Project assessments

Changes

Recently changes have been made to this template that are designed to accommodate a single project. The editor making the changes probably didn't realize that this template is designed for use in multiple projects as this was originally created for use in WP:Food.

Suggested changes:

1. Add variables that allow project-specific modifications as apposed to modifying it for every one.
2. Instead of making changes to the template based on personal changes, we need to make sure that the template confirms with appropriate WP polices regarding accessibility.

That is all I have as of now. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Before we even discuss changes, I think it's well worth finding out if the bot which updates this is still functional, as clicking through to Toolserver says the service is disabled.  The Potato Hose ↘ 17:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The Toolserver is temporarily down, and currently displays the notice "Service temporarily disabled". It isn't down permanently. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that is incorrect. Most of the other tools (the ones I've poked at anyway) are perfectly functional right now. It is specifically the tool which updates article assessment which is disabled. We should find out when or if this tool will be coming back online before wasting time on making changes that may be futile.  The Potato Hose ↘ 18:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, as of this post, The Toolserver function for article statistics is down at this time. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Um, yes? I have already pointed that out several times. And (repeating myself) we should find out when or if it'll be coming back before looking at what may be pointless cosmetic changes.  The Potato Hose ↘ 18:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Other bots could be created to generate content in the highly unlikely event that Toolserver's article statistics parameters are discontinued. Article statistics are a vital component of article organization in the encyclopedia. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Could be. Have not been. I have asked the bot owners to comment here about timelines to resolution, if any. Nobody is disputing that this template is useful, when it is actually updated.  The Potato Hose ↘ 18:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support point #1 above of User:Jerem43's suggested changes. Adding parameters to make the template modifiable for projects is functional to enable projects to better-manage their pages. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Why are you persisting in this? The template may never be useful again if the bot owners decide not to move to WMFLabs. Nobody else may be interested in making the changes necessary to change the bot from the Toolserver framework to the WMFLabs framework. There is no point in discussing any of this until we know what is happening with the bot.  The Potato Hose ↘ 20:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Because I support point #1 above of User:Jerem43's suggested changes at top. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Um, you realize that what you just said was "I support this because I support it," yeah? And that my question was "Why are you bothering to go on and on about these changes you want when the template itself is largely useless"? — The Potato Hose 22:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Say again? As clicking through to Toolserver says the service is disabled - yes, the web interface was probably temporarily down (a know issue that happens with all Toolserver tools)...but Food and drink's quality stats were updated just a few hours ago, to give an example. The bot is still functional, just sometimes in chunks. As far as migration to Labs: yes, it will happen. But WP 1.0 bot relies on database replication, and until that is implemented, we can't move. Theopolisme (talk) 21:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Well that's jolly good news then. The interface has been down for over a week; is there any idea of when it'll be back? The statistics aren't a whole lot of use without being able to drill down to the specifics. — The Potato Hose 21:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• The listings at Toolserver are now functional. The template is now fully usable. That's jolly good, right? Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Increase point size

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Increasing the point size in the template would be functional. The current point size for article statistics is tiny, and people likely just skim over them due to the table's sizing. A normal point size in most browsers to make the content more easily read cannot harm the encyclopedia. However, I understand that various pages may have formatting concerns. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Every page which uses this table will have formatting concerns. And, again, we are arguing about what colour a dilapidated shed should be repainted before we are figuring out when or how to rebuild it. And I have just edit-conflicted with you again, which now makes for something like eight or nine times in under an hour. Please pay more attention.  The Potato Hose ↘ 18:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Rather than discussing edit conflicts here, which occur from time-to-time, what do you think about the notion of moderately increasing the point size? Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Nine times in an hour is not 'from time to time,' it is sloppy editing on your part. I try to be courteous to other users in terms of making things easy for them to edit, and I ask the same in return. Please take more care, alright?

As for the fontsize issue, I've already said it is pointless to have that discussion until we know when or if the bot will be returning.  The Potato Hose ↘ 18:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Re Toolserver: See also Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) – FYI: Toolserver web tools and bots down. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

And there is nothing there regarding User:WP 1.0 bot, which is why I have asked the bot owners for an update. As I stated above.  The Potato Hose ↘ 19:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

That's why I worded the above as "see also", because others may be interested in the information there. Cheers, Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support (as nominator) moderately increasing point size, per pending approval from every WikiProject that uses the template (see What links here). The latter may be difficult to accomplish, though. It is easier to have adjustment parameters. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • WHY? Why are you !voting support on a proposal you signed yourself? It's completely redundant. Why are you continuing on and on and on about this and more-or-less completely refusing to acknowledge that the template is useless without being able to access the data it links to? — The Potato Hose 22:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Formatting this thread (answer to "why?"). Article statistics aren't going away, not likely ever. Care to address the actual proposals here? Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Not until you address the rather more salient point I am making: that discussing proposals is both pointless and stupid when the template does not work and there is no information on when it will work again. Address that. — The Potato Hose 22:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, parts of the template are still quite functional, such as its links to Category:Top-importance Food and drink articles (et al.) and Category:FA-Class Food and drink articles (et al.), and the link to User:WP 1.0 bot/WikiWork/faq. Therefore, I don't perceive discussion to improve it as "pointless" or "stupid". Again, in the unlikely event that the Toolserver stats are permanently discontinued, other systems can be developed to furnish the statistical information. Yes, links to statistics at Toolserver.org are down, but this is very, very likely a temporary matter. Increasing the point size can help to make it more readable, and hence, more usable. This will make its currently-working links easier to use. Hopefully this serves to clarify your strong concerns about the functionality of this discussion, and please keep in mind that others may have different opinions than yours. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Direct category links are irrelevant as those are easy to find. Category intersections are more difficult and require hunting down specialized tools on Toolserver. One of us is dealing with speculation, one of us is dealing with facts. Just for a lark, why don't you try addressing the facts? The template is not usable for its major purpose. We do not know when it will be usable. What is the point of cosmetic changes? — The Potato Hose 17:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• The listings at Toolserver are now functional. The template is now fully usable. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The above discussion is pointless

And until someone can explain why there is any point in discussing cosmetic changes to a nonfunctional template, it should remain closed. — The Potato Hose 02:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The template is now functional and accurate (see also: Special:Contributions/WP 1.0 bot), as the issue was resolved last night with a hard restart of sorts. Theopolisme (talk) 10:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

For how long? In any case, there is now a point in having this discussion, which there was not before. — The Potato Hose 16:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Striking above, service is still unavailable on Toolserver. This template is not functional. — The Potato Hose 16:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Stat lists are posting now. This thread's header is now obsolete. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Okay oops I am an angry potato and made a mistake in an edit summary about five minutes ago. My bad. — The Potato Hose 05:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed layout changes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As of this post, article listings at Toolserver are now working and functional. For an example, check out FA-Class Food articles. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Is it OK now to consider changing the point size of the statistics box to a normal point size? This is a very basic layout improvement, so people can read the information easily, and then utilize it. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

We can discuss it when you bother giving a crap about how hard it is for other people to edit the page when you take eleven (!!!!!!!) edits to say something. I have already commented on how your editing style makes it incredibly difficult for others to comment, and this is not something new that people are saying to you. Stop running around like a bull in a china shop, take a moment to preview what you have typed, and generally give a moment to understanding how very, very difficult your editing style makes things for other people. Of course it's possible that you know exactly how difficult you make things for other editors--it's impossible to believe you don't know--so maybe you're doing it on purpose. But for the moment I will strain every muscle in my body to AGF, so how about you just stop? — The Potato Hose 04:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the above, I understand your points, and yes, I'll preview first. Do you have any opinion about the proposed layout changes? Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I do. I will express it after I've seen that you're actually going to do what you say, and after you have responded to the points at WT:FOOD. — The Potato Hose 16:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.