Dirtlawyer1 (talk | contribs) →Improve redundancy and verifiability: we need someone to show us how to set up the coding for inline citations |
|||
Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
*I really have no preference as to what is decided. As I said on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dirtlawyer1&diff=686300566&oldid=686297082 Dirtlawyer1's talk page], do what's best for the Wikipedia Community. Whatever that may be, I'm fine with. <span style="background:#231F20; color:#FFFFFF; border:1px solid #231F20">Corkythe</span><span style="background:#BB8D0A; color:#FFFFFF; border:1px solid #231F20">[[User talk:Corkythehornetfan|<span style="color:white">hornetfan</span>]]</span> 18:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC) |
*I really have no preference as to what is decided. As I said on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dirtlawyer1&diff=686300566&oldid=686297082 Dirtlawyer1's talk page], do what's best for the Wikipedia Community. Whatever that may be, I'm fine with. <span style="background:#231F20; color:#FFFFFF; border:1px solid #231F20">Corkythe</span><span style="background:#BB8D0A; color:#FFFFFF; border:1px solid #231F20">[[User talk:Corkythehornetfan|<span style="color:white">hornetfan</span>]]</span> 18:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC) |
||
**Corky: As the top editor by edit count of this page, you could set an example by adding the suggested comments if you think they are helpful. I rarely edit this module, and have no interest in force-feeding or policing this myself if there is no grassroots interest. IMO, the editors here could reduce the repeated disputes if they wanted to, but maybe it's not considered a real issue.—[[User:Bagumba|Bagumba]] ([[User talk:Bagumba|talk]]) 19:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC) |
**Corky: As the top editor by edit count of this page, you could set an example by adding the suggested comments if you think they are helpful. I rarely edit this module, and have no interest in force-feeding or policing this myself if there is no grassroots interest. IMO, the editors here could reduce the repeated disputes if they wanted to, but maybe it's not considered a real issue.—[[User:Bagumba|Bagumba]] ([[User talk:Bagumba|talk]]) 19:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC) |
||
***Bagumba, what we need is someone knowledgeable to show us how to set up the inline linked citations for the Lua module, so we can implement your suggestion. This needs to happen for the reasons discussed above. I think Corky is tired of playing the Lone Ranger. [[User:Dirtlawyer1|Dirtlawyer1]] ([[User talk:Dirtlawyer1|talk]]) 19:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:30, 26 October 2015
This module does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Secondary colors
For purposes of legibility it seems a good a rule of thumb to if at all possible make the second color white, or, if that be untenable as a school color, and the first is a shade of Princeton orange or lighter, then black. Cake (talk) 09:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Request for template protection
I was asked to consider adding template protection to this page, with the arguments summarized as follows:
- Some edit wars have occurred on this page
- A sockpuppet has previously edited this page.
- The colors of hundreds of schools could be compromised by this one page, impacting a lot of pages (exactly number not readily available as this page is generically included in templates also used by pro players)
Relevant points from Wikipedia:Protection policy are:
- WP:TEMP-P: Template protection "should only be used on templates whose risk factor would have otherwise warranted full protection."
- Full protection would not be warranted here for content disputes. Full protection would normally be temporary in this case, and not indefinite. Moreover, WP:FULL advises: "Isolated incidents of edit warring, and persistent edit warring by particular users, may be better addressed by blocking, so as not to prevent normal editing of the page by others."
- If socking were a concern, semi-protection would be used, not full.
- Full protection is not typically used to prevent vandalism. Per WP:PREEMPTIVE: "Pre-emptive full protection of articles is contrary to the open nature of Wikipedia ... Persistent vandalism, or the possibility of future vandalism for highly trafficked articles, rarely provides a basis for full-protection. Semi-protection is used for articles, such as Jesus, that have a pattern of heavy sustained vandalism."
- TEMP-P also allows for usage on high-risk templates or modules. Indications are that for this data page, the worst that is expected to happen is that the wrong colors might appear, and the text in the colored borders of affected infoboxes could be made unreadable by a rogue editor.[1] This is not at the risk level of making 1000s of pages entirely unreadable, or placing an undue load on servers.
My decision for the current request is for no template protection, based on policy cited. Incorrect colors seem to be the most likely risk of not providing template protection, but this seems akin to the risk inherent for any content on Wikipedia that might be temporarily incorrect until it is detected and addressed.
To mitigate edit wars, I would suggest improving the verifiability of the colors used. One option might be to annotate the page with comments—perhaps of urls supporting the choicef colors—in the Lua code. Comments are denoted by double dashes, e.g. --, such as in this sandbox edit. If an individual editor is still problematic despite continued dispute resolution attempts, a topic ban is also an option. Finally, temporary full protection remains an alternative if needed to encourage discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 02:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Improve redundancy and verifiability
@Corkythehornetfan, MisterCake, Frietjes, ArmandoBecker, Joeykai, UCO2009bluejay, and Charlesaaronthompson: You've been directly pinged as the editors with > 10 edits of this page.[2] I'll also leave notification at WT:CBBALL and WP:CFB, projects that have infoboxes that use this module.
There seems to be occasional disputes over individual color entries in the table. To minimize these disagreements, I would suggest for long-term verifiabiity that inline comments be used when adding or modifying a line. This can be done in Lua by using double dashes, e.g. --, such as in this sandbox edit. For example, the comment can be the URL of an online reference, and/or text about how the colors were derived. In the past, this has sometimes been provided in an edit summary, but it's not manageable to trace through edit summaries for historical changes.
Additionally, the college colors on this page seem to be duplicated in other infoboxes. For example, the infobox of Ohio State Buckeyes football has the school colors displayed, except the values are not taken from this module. To centralize the colors and remove the overhead of multiple updates, I would suggest that {{CollegePrimaryHex}} and {{CollegeSecondaryHex}} be used to avoid colors not being consistent across pages.
I am Interested if editors think these steps would be an improvement, or if there are better suggestions. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 06:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Bagumba, if you want to this module in the infobox, you will need a way to keep the name of the color in sync with the color (e.g., color1 and color1hex). this is certainly possible by extending this module to include color names. a better option would be to just have {{Infobox NCAA football school}} use this module directly, extracting the team name from the
|TeamName=
parameter. Frietjes (talk) 14:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)- @Frietjes: Great suggestion to just have the infoboxes coded to call the module itself instead of burdening editors to have to have to call CollegePrimaryHex and CollegeSecondaryHex themselves. I'd imaging there are some transclusions where the text for the colors might be different than what is currently in this table. Those cases, which should be few, would just have to be identified manually on a per-case basis. I'll leave it up to others if they want to have the text for the colors stored in this table or not. I guess a bot could do the transferring, if desired?—Bagumba (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Bagumba and Frietjes: Yes, this is a very good idea, and it is the logical expansion of the module's applications. One verified source for college colors in all college sports articles, infoboxes, and navboxes. The problem, Bagumba, is that it will mean that even more articles are exposed to mischief-making through tampering with the module. I'm all in favor of Frietjes' proposal, but the module needs to be locked as I have urged before, which is completely consistent with the purpose and intents of template protection. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- DL: You can continue your concerns with protection above at #Request for template protection, and feel free to invite other admins to participate as well.—Bagumba (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think that would be appropriate. In the mean time, we should also take the necessary steps to implement the inline linked sourcing within the Lua module. That, at least, would permit any watchers to instantly check any changes to the module. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- DL: You can continue your concerns with protection above at #Request for template protection, and feel free to invite other admins to participate as well.—Bagumba (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Bagumba and Frietjes: Yes, this is a very good idea, and it is the logical expansion of the module's applications. One verified source for college colors in all college sports articles, infoboxes, and navboxes. The problem, Bagumba, is that it will mean that even more articles are exposed to mischief-making through tampering with the module. I'm all in favor of Frietjes' proposal, but the module needs to be locked as I have urged before, which is completely consistent with the purpose and intents of template protection. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Frietjes: Great suggestion to just have the infoboxes coded to call the module itself instead of burdening editors to have to have to call CollegePrimaryHex and CollegeSecondaryHex themselves. I'd imaging there are some transclusions where the text for the colors might be different than what is currently in this table. Those cases, which should be few, would just have to be identified manually on a per-case basis. I'll leave it up to others if they want to have the text for the colors stored in this table or not. I guess a bot could do the transferring, if desired?—Bagumba (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think this is a worthwile proposal. I am tired of having reverts blowing up my watchlist (Usually by Corky and he is in the right to do so because he is actually verifying the others' work). When I have edited the table I usually put the source url in the edit summary, and if I can't find it for a team, I don't add the program to the mod. I suppose many others don't, so if this will cut down on the clutter great.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 00:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- I really have no preference as to what is decided. As I said on Dirtlawyer1's talk page, do what's best for the Wikipedia Community. Whatever that may be, I'm fine with. Corkythehornetfan 18:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Corky: As the top editor by edit count of this page, you could set an example by adding the suggested comments if you think they are helpful. I rarely edit this module, and have no interest in force-feeding or policing this myself if there is no grassroots interest. IMO, the editors here could reduce the repeated disputes if they wanted to, but maybe it's not considered a real issue.—Bagumba (talk) 19:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Bagumba, what we need is someone knowledgeable to show us how to set up the inline linked citations for the Lua module, so we can implement your suggestion. This needs to happen for the reasons discussed above. I think Corky is tired of playing the Lone Ranger. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Corky: As the top editor by edit count of this page, you could set an example by adding the suggested comments if you think they are helpful. I rarely edit this module, and have no interest in force-feeding or policing this myself if there is no grassroots interest. IMO, the editors here could reduce the repeated disputes if they wanted to, but maybe it's not considered a real issue.—Bagumba (talk) 19:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)