User talk:Pyrospirit/metadata/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Notes

Section merged from User talk:Pyrospirit/metadata.js.

(diff): it has to be

(skin == "modern")

(double equal sign); personally, I would write

var noneColor = (skin == "modern") ? "#FFFFFF" : "#000000"

—AlexSm 00:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops, kinda missed this page. Yeah, I figured it out on my own eventually. Thanks for the advice. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 23:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

var names

Section merged from User talk:Pyrospirit/metadata.js.

Another concern: variables and functions names seem to be too simple. If some other userscript would use color or update or begin, the gadget will likely to break (since userscripts are called a bit later). There are two approaches here:

adding short unique prefix to each global function or variable
enclosing everything inside one big function

—AlexSm 18:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean, that could be an issue. I'll fix this. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 18:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Bug in description text

Resolved

– Used string explicitly instead of getting it from a tag.

When I visit any article, instead of texts like "A Featured Article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia", I get "A Featured Article wikipedia". If I visit a Good Article that was a former Featured Article, I get "A Good Article wikipedia. A former Featured Article", and so on. It's as if the part of the string that's supposed to say "from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" is simply replaced by "wikipedia". I'm guessing this could be due to my Wikipedia locale, which is set to Swedish. I'm using a Firefox 3 pre-beta 5 build and this functionality as a "gadget" set in my user preferences. — Northgrove 01:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Now having switched to the default English locale, I indeed get the proper description texts. Additionally, my HotCat gadget started working too, so this one isn't alone with having locale problems. I think I'll just keep using Wikipedia with the English locale then, but think these sorts of locale problems should generally be mentioned more prominently. — Northgrove 01:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That's very odd. I don't have Firefox 3, so I'm not sure what could be causing this. Here's the piece of code that generates the tagline:

function updateAssessment(headerColor, slogan, info) {
document.getElementsByTagName("h1")[0].style.cssText = "color: " + headerColor + ";";
t = document.getElementById("siteSub").innerHTML;
document.getElementById("siteSub").innerHTML = "<i>" + slogan + "</i> " + t.charAt(0).toLowerCase() + t.substring(1) + info;
}

It basically takes the element containing the siteSub and turns the first letter to lowercase, adding the article information to the beginning and end. The only explanation I can think of at the moment is that when your locale is set to Swedish, the siteSub tag is structured differently. I'll try to fix it, but if I can't figure out how, I'll mention it in the documentation. Thanks for letting me know about this. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 15:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think it's because your siteSub element is being taken from the Swedish Wikipedia, where it is Wikipedia rather than From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. I think I can fix this by explicitly using that string rather than generating it automatically from the previous siteSub content. Does this fix the problem when you set your locale to Swedish? Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 15:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Just remembered that I have to get the gadget version updated separately, so you won't see the change quite yet. You can either run it from my userspace version or just wait a little for an admin to update the gadget version. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 15:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Tibet is incorrectly classified

Resolved

– Fixed malformed template on article.

When I look at Tibet, this script says the article is a Good Article, when in fact it is a B-class article and there is no evidence that points to it being a GA on the Talk page. Gary King (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The script was detecting a duplicate, outdated currentstatus parameter in its {{ArticleHistory}} template. I've removed the extra parameter from the talk page, and it is now displaying properly as B-class. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 22:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Flag of Canada is not a former featured article

Resolved

– Fixed bug in regex.

Even though this script says so. It was nominated as a WP:FAC but failed, meaning it was never a WP:FA. Gary King (talk) 22:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. It was a small bug in the regex for FFAs that made it detect FFACs as well. Thanks for letting me know about this. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 23:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

War (card game)

Resolved

– Fixed bug in regex.

War (card game) is considered a disambiguation page by this script. It is not a disambiguation page. Gary King (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Mission: Impossible is not a disambiguation page even though the script says so, too. Gary King (talk) 18:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea what could be causing this. The same is occurring for me, even after purging the pages and clearing my browser cache. I have checked both pages manually for the pieces of code that the script detects as signaling a disambiguation page, and neither page has these. Also, testing for the required conditions by running the necessary JavaScript after the page loads detects as false for all these conditions! I'm going to post this at WP:VPT and see if anyone else can explain this. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 23:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, it's now fixed. Turns out I had misinterpreted what the | symbol did in regex and had miscoded something as a result. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 00:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Featured Lists

Resolved

– Added feature.

Would it be possible for this script to differentiate between Featured Articles and Featured Lists? Right now, when I am viewing a Featured List, the script still calls it a Featured Article. Shouldn't it be able to tell the difference considering, the term 'article' is not mentioned anywhere for a Featured List? (On the article page, for instance, it uses {{featured list}}, and on the Talk page, it uses "article is a featured list." Thanks! Gary King (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been considering this, but haven't had time to code it in yet. I'll do that now. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 21:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you also show that an article is currently a featured list candidate when that is the case, so that it is similar to how the featured article candidate feature works? Gary King (talk) 22:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I've done that. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 22:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't appear to be working. Is it searching for {{FLC}}? Gary King (talk) 00:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it searches the first section of the talk page for a match to /\{\{flc\}/i. It's working for me. Looking at User:Gary King/monobook.js, I don't see the script there, which means you must be running the gadget version. I currently have an open {{editprotected}} request for an admin to update the script with this feature; I have to do that since I can't edit gadgets in the MediaWiki namespace. You might want to manually install the version I edit at User:Pyrospirit/metadata.js so you can get all changes to the script as soon as I make them. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 01:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

System failure?

Resolved

– Seemingly fixed itself.

I had this function included in my preferences, and found that, as of a couple of days ago, it no longer functions. I have even specifically checked the right box in "Gadgets" and cleared the cache, only to find that the system does not seem to remain operational. Is there a problem with this function such that it no longer works? John Carter (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The script has not been changed since April 10, and I don't know of any changes to the MediaWiki API that would cause it to break. I logged on to User:Pyrospirit (alt), my alternate account that uses the gadget, and it works just fine for me. If it still isn't working for you, I'll need more information. What browser are you using and what version is it? What gadgets or Greasemonkey scripts do you have installed, if any? Does your error console (in Firefox, Tools -> Error Console) contain any errors relating to this script? If I know these things, it might help me figure out how you can get it to work. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 20:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for having not withdrawn the statement when the system restored itself, which has subsequently done, and now I can see the assessments again. Personally, I have no clue what may have happened, but it seems to have corrected itself, about a day or two after the problem was noticed. I wish I could say more, but I don't know any more. Sorry. John Carter (talk) 20:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Glad it's working again. Computers are funny like that, aren't they? Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 20:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Lyme disease incorrect rating displayed

Resolved

– Script now detects GA-class before A-class.

Lyme disease is a WP:GA in WikiProject Medicine but the script says it is A-class, presumably because it is confused by the old rating for Version 0.5 that is still listed on the talk page. - Neparis (talk) 17:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. The script always detects ratings in a specific order; to fix this issue, I made it detect GA-class before A-class. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 18:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that was fast. What a great script/gadget! - Neparis (talk) 16:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

What about the projects?

WP:MILHIST considers A-Class above GA, and as such our article are frequently both Good Articles and have passed our A-Class review (which has higher standards than GA does). A good example is Montana class battleship. This change is detrimental and seems unnecessary as the A-Class assessment is superior in some projects assessment structure. -MBK₀₀₄ 19:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you suggest I do, then? Should A-class always have priority over a GA rating? I can only do one way or the other, and there's some cases where GA is more significant than an A-class assessment from a small or minor WikiProject. Given the ongoing discussion over the assessment scale, I think it might be a better idea to wait until everything settles down before I make too many changes to the script; I'll probably have to rewrite chunks of it anyway. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 21:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Overriding the default colors?

Is there any way I can specify my own color for a class or two, using a userspace js or css? I don't really like the B-Class color, and would prefer a more orangish-gold, about like what you have in your signature. Thanks in advance for your reply. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. See User:Pyrospirit/metadata#Customization. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 18:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Could any of the customizations be done by CSS, so people using the gadget version could simply make their customizations via their userspace monobook.css? Just a thought... - Neparis (talk) 16:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be possible, but it would complicate the script somewhat. I might do this later. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 22:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Assessing articles

Is there anyway this script can be used to assess articles like the outriggr script.--Oneworld25 (talk) 14:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Won't fix. I currently have no plans to add that functionality. This script is designed to display an article's assessment and nothing more. Adding more features would reduce its usability as a gadget since less people would have a use for it and the extra features would clutter up the script and slow it down. However, I have no problem with someone else using its source code to write a script designed to aid article assessment. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 19:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Assessment order

Because the "unassessed" check (no talk page) appears before the "redirect" check in beginAssessment, redirects are never marked as such. Changing

    else if ( document.getElementById("ca-talk").className == "new" ) {
        updateAssessment(TitleColor.none, "An " + linkLead + "unassessed</a> article", "");
    }
    else if ( document.getElementById("contentSub").innerHTML == "Redirect page" ) {
        updateAssessment(TitleColor.none, 'A <a style="color:' + TitleColor.link + ';" href="/wiki/Help:Redirect">Redirect page</a>', "");
    }

to

    else if ( document.getElementById("contentSub").innerHTML == "Redirect page" ) {
        updateAssessment(TitleColor.none, 'A <a style="color:' + TitleColor.link + ';" href="/wiki/Help:Redirect">Redirect page</a>', "");
    }
    else if ( document.getElementById("ca-talk").className == "new" ) {
        updateAssessment(TitleColor.none, "An " + linkLead + "unassessed</a> article", "");
    }

ought to fix the problem. nneonneo ^talk 17:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for catching that. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 22:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick fix. Can I also ask if it's possible to define a color for redirects? nneonneo ^talk 22:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I kept the colors the same by default for redirects, but you can now customize it by defining TitleColor.redir. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 23:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch! nneonneo ^talk 15:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

C-class?

Why does the script say that Nguyen Van Nhung is a C-class article when on the Talk page it is identified as a Start-class article? The C-class does not even exist yet and is still under discussion. Gary King (talk) 03:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. I coded in C-class just in case any projects start using it, and so that if it does start being used, the script will detect it immediately. The reason why that article detected as C-class was that the regexp /class *= *c/i matched A-Class=current in the first section of the article's talk page. The script now requires word boundaries in the patterns it searches for (e.g. /\bclass *= *c\b/i), which should prevent this from happening again. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 17:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

C-Class was approved, by the way. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 09:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. As I mentioned above, I coded it in a little early so that it would be ready as soon as it was approved. Let me know if you find any bugs with it. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 17:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Assessing (again)

Do you possibly have the time to code a version of this to include the ability to assess an article? i.e. Metadata-2 §hep • ¡Talk to me! 18:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I might be able to do that at some point. If I do, it will be a different script rather than an addition to the existing one. It's a good idea if I can figure out how to write something like that. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 01:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Awesome! I'll be sure to keep an eye out in the future for it. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 01:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I just finished restructuring the existing script to allow other scripts access to its functions. This will make it easier to write a new script that lets you change the assessment of an article. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 20:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you simplify the color scheme?

The color scheme is complex and difficult for newcomers to understand. Specifically, could you stop coloring List-class articles and disambiguation pages? Leaving them black will simplify the color scheme significantly, without breaking consistency with Template:Grading scheme. --Masatran (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This script now uses the shared CSS classes at MediaWiki:Common.css, which means I don't control the defaults. You could suggest the change at MediaWiki talk:Common.css or at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. Besides, I don't see how having a separate color for list and disambiguation pages makes things more complicated. It just reflects the colors already in use to designate those assessments. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 23:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Heading colour not changing

Hi there. Just a quick note to say that I appreciate your script, but it hasn't been working right for me over the past few days. The written description that indicates the rating under the heading still works, but the headings are no longer colour coded – they're all black. Any ideas what might have happened? – SJL 17:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that this might be your problem. Try removing it. Gary King (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed it and purged the cache, but it had no effect. – SJL 18:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I see that you are using the monobook.js version of the script. Perhaps try using the Gadget version, found in Preferences? Also, try removing all items from your monobook as well, to start with nothing else. Gary King (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The Gadget version works – thanks for the help! – SJL 18:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Great, glad to hear it! Gary King (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The userspace version uses CSS classes from MediaWiki:Common.css. Due to concerns about caching, I hadn't requested that these changes be synchronized to the gadget version yet. When User:Happy-melon removed those CSS classes recently, it broke only the userspace version as a result. I'm going to add them back for users of this script only in the form of a custom stylesheet. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 15:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Now using a custom stylesheet at User:Pyrospirit/metadata.css. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 02:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Not working

I just installed this gadget and it's not working at all. I have the latest Firefox version on a Mac. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Works for me: gadget, Firefox, Mac. Gary King (talk) 03:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Works for me, anything showing up in your Error Console? Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 15:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

"Current-class"

Could the Current-class be added? Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones among other projects use it; example is at Talk:Hurricane Dolly (2008). And I think WP:FILM and WP:VG among others use the Future-class for items that will be released in the future? Gary King (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll implement both of those sometime soon. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 15:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Done, implemented, and working well for me. Note that it'll only pick up a rating of Current or Future if it can't find anything else to rate the article. That means that, for example, an article rated B-class by one project and Current-class by another will show as B-class. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 02:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

They all look great, and I like the colors chosen, too! However, the only color that I don't like is the one for disambiguation – that one is way too bright, at least for me. Thoughts? Gary King (talk) 01:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I've darkened it by about 20% now. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 02:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks a lot better now. Perfect! Gary King (talk) 02:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

GA-class or B-class?

Los Angeles, California is a delisted good article. On its talk page it is marked as B-class under several WikiProjects and shown as delisted geography article under article milestones. Nonetheless, its title is green and "Good article" thing is written underneath. Could you please look into this? I'm using Firefox. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 13:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. The article was rated by the WP 1.0 Assessment Team as a GA, and that assessment is still present on the article's talk page. I've added another regexp to ignore a GA rating in the presence of a current status of delisted GA. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 03:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

~~One more problem: The Šalata article appears to be Start-class although it is rated as C-class by WikiProject Croatia. There are no other ratings on the discussion page except by WP Croatia.~~ Admiral Norton ^(talk) 09:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed It took a Ctrl+F5, but it's fine now. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 14:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Show GANs

If an article is nominated for WP:GAN, they will have the {{GA nominee}} template on their talk page. Could this gadget please mention if an article is nominated, just like it does for FACs and FLCs? Gary King (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I could do that. I might also add in former GA detection while I'm at it. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 23:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. The code for GA nominee detection was already there, but was broken due a change in the template. I also added delisted GA detection. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 00:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Has the gadget been updated? It doesn't work; I'm testing with Slipknot Demo. Gary King (talk) 00:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

No, the gadget hasn't been updated yet. I can't edit the MediaWiki namespace myself, so I put in an {{editprotected}} request whenever I have an update for the gadget ready. Slipknot Demo works for me, so it should work for you once an admin updates the gadget. (I use the userspace version so I can easily test changes to the script.) Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 01:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

FLCs don't work

If an article is nominated for FLC then it doesn't say so. Could someone double-check? Gary King (talk) 07:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I checked a few current FLC articles, and it worked on all of them. Is there a specific page where it doesn't show up like it should? Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 16:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems to work well again. Gary King (talk) 20:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Multiple ratings

An article can sometimes have multiple ratings from multiple wikiprojects. Would it be convenient for you to make it show all ratings (and possibly where it comes from)? RayAYang (talk) 12:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't all the ratings be consistent? Admiral Norton ^(talk) 18:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Not always. There are differences b/w projects on criteria, and some projects use some ratings that others don't. RayAYang (talk) 21:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, not always; the script currently shows the "highest" rating, using the ranking shown on the script's page. I think it's fairly logical the way it works now; it would be very difficult to show the actual wikiproject that each rating is for – the only thing available is the template's name, which is sometimes a redirect that can be difficult to decipher (like {{WPCS}} for instance). Gary King (talk) 21:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

As Gary King said, it would be very difficult to have it show ratings from each WikiProject. I've found that on the vast majority of articles where ratings differ between projects, the highest rating among them is the one that makes the most sense to display. The script checks for certain clearly outdated assessments just in case; a GA assessment is ignored if the article is also detected as a delisted GA. Displaying multiple assessments would also complicate the script more than I'd like. If you want to see assessments in detail, you have to go to the talk page anyway. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 16:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Does not appear as Good article?

StarCraft: Brood War does not appear as a Good article with this version of the talk page. Gary King (talk) 01:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. The script detects good articles by looking for the syntax used in WikiProject banners and {{ArticleHistory}}, but it didn't look for {{GA}}. I've added a bit to the GA regexp so it detects this template as well. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 03:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Former featured article nominee, former good article nominee

How about adding checks for former featured article nominee and former good article nominee? Failed featured article candidates will be noted in the {{articlehistory}} template; failed good article nominees will either be in articlehistory or indicated with {{Failed GA}}. Gary King (talk) 20:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. It now detects both former featured article candidates and former good article nominees. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 00:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it's working. However, Jurassic Park (franchise) should be a "former good article" rather than a "former good article nominee". Gary King (talk) 14:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that. Looks like I forgot to look for delisted good articles in {{ArticleHistory}}. I have a version ready with this fixed, but first I'm going to add a few other things for the script to detect, such as featured articles currently being reviewed, featured list removal candidates, good articles being reviewed, former featured lists, and former featured list candidates. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 15:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright that sounds good. Hopefully the script doesn't become too bloated; I imagine it does things like stop looking for templates after the first section (denoted with ==) on the talk page so it doesn't spend time searching the entire talk page? Gary King (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It uses &section=0 in the request so that it only gets the lead section. Also, it stops after finding a match to a pattern rather than continuing to check each pattern for matches. I don't think the script will become too bloated just with what I'm doing here, especially considering that it only makes a single request to the server which is then stored in a variable for all the regular expressions checks (which run quite quickly). Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 20:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, got all the new features written and tested. I made a lot of changes, so I won't be surprised if there's a bug or two I missed. However, since everything appears to be working as it should, so I'm going to request an update to the gadget. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 00:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Broken

Saving Private Ryan says "A B-class article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. A former ." I'm guessing this is because of the latest changes. Gary King (talk) 16:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that. Turns out it was just a small typo that resulted in a malformed link. It works as it should now. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 19:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The assessment for Spore (2008 video game) never seems to come up for some reason. I've had this problem sometimes with other articles but usually it's because the website is slow or something, so refreshing a few times usually works. This article doesn't work at all, though. Gary King (talk) 15:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, a few seconds after posting the above, I noticed the JavaScript error:

text.match(RegExp(pageLinkPattern)) is null
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&title=User%3APyrospirit%2Fmetadata.js
Line 183

Gary King (talk) 15:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Just forgot to account for an odd combination of parameters in ArticleHistory. It should now simply use the default link if it can't find the associated link parameter in ArticleHistory. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 21:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Multiple ratings revisited

I was passing by an article with 2 discordant assessments (in this case, 'Start' and 'B'!). To my surprise, the best assessment was shown ('B'). I find this totally illogical. Assessment is most informative to signal to readers which articles should probably not be trusted (not that any article should be trusted). In this case, the second assessment on the talk page was shown.

Shouldn't this be changed to show the worst rating? Normally, if it is FA or GA, it should be so for all projects, so that can't be a problem.

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I considered this situation before, and I decided that it makes more sense to go with the highest rating. This is because after looking at a number of articles with multiple assessments of which two or more don't match, it seems that it is rare for a single assessment to be higher than all the rest, but relatively common for a single assessment to be lower than all the rest. Also, a lower rating by one project often means nothing more than that the article has limited content within the project's scope, not that the entire article is lacking. In either situation, it is usually more indicative of the article's quality to give the highest rating.

I trust projects to make reasonable assessments, and if an article was marked Start-class by one project due to flaws relevant to every project's assessment, it is unlikely that another project would mark it B-class; the same flaws would be readily apparent to members of either project. It would not make sense to display a whole article as start- or stub-class just because one project assesses it as such for reasons specific to that one project.

However, if you personally wish to have the lowest assessment display, I can create an optional component for the script that will override the default behavior. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 21:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't really have that much experience to say if a single lower rating is more common. My second point was that over-rating is more troublesome for readers than underrating, since it gives a false sense of trustworthiness, whereas an an underrating doesn't seem harmful to me. In the case I encountered, the assessment was indeed incorrect. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Underrating an article gives the false impression that the whole article is of poor quality or possibly inaccurate when it is often just limited in its coverage of a single topic area that it should ideally have more detail in, a flaw that does not reflect the overall quality of the article. While I agree that overrating is a problem, the solution is to reassess the article under that project, not to change this script in a way that would cause many more articles to be underrated. An overly high assessment is a problem when it's displayed on the talk page, too.

If you're interested, here is an addon for the script that should make the lowest assessment display when you have it installed. Also, could you link to the article you've been referring to? I'd like to take a look at it as well. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 22:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Ovarian cancer. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, now I see what you were talking about. The problem was really the inaccurate B-class assessment itself, which I see you fixed. Unless a fair number more articles have the same situation to the point where it's more of a problem than underrating articles would be, I don't plan on making the lowest assessment display by default. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 22:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Allow me to say that I really appreciate the gadget. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Glad you find it useful. It's certainly been a big help to me, and not just for what it does; much of what I know about JavaScript comes from what I've picked up while working on it. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 00:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Could it be set so it where ratings differ displays the ratings from a specific project? I work largely on marital arts articles and it would be helpful to see that project's rating over say the Milhist or Japanese project. --Nate 14 81 07:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That would be possible, but quite difficult, as it would require me to rewrite most of the script and really complicate things. It's almost certainly not something I'm going to write for the gadget anytime soon, though I might work on this as an extension for the script at some point. It's a good idea, so I'll try to figure out if there's a reasonable way to do this. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 13:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Colors for FA-class and A-class look very similar

Both colors are very similar. Perhaps change the A-class one to be lighter? Gary King (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Since the A-class color used in WikiProject banners has a significant amount of green in it, I've changed the A-class color to match more closely to it. The FA and A colors are fairly different now. Do you think the new color looks good? Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 21:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

A lot better, thanks! Gary King (talk) 02:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Peer reviews

Have you thought about adding peer reviews to the assessment? They aren't nearly as important as they change pretty often, but it could be useful to see when an article is currently undergoing a peer review. Gary King (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. It now detects ongoing peer reviews. (Past peer reviews probably aren't relevant enough to display.) Since some people might not want it to show peer reviews, I wrapped it in the assess-info-review class. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 18:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)