Template talk:Maths rating

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mathematics articles rated according to the Wikipedia 1.0 Assesment Scale.

This page is part of WikiProject Mathematics.

1 Usage notes for this template
2 Grading scheme
3 Small parameter setting
4 Adding comments
5 Hide the comment field
6 Style changes
7 field=image and field=list
8 Links and categories
9 Recent updates
10 Template basing-off question
11 frequentlyviewed=?

[edit] Usage notes for this template

Use this template to rate mathematics articles by quality and importance. Include the following on the article's talk page.

Quality

Importance

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Wikipedia 1.0 for a sub project working on rating mathematics pages for the Wikipedia stable version.

[edit] Grading scheme

The above quality labels refer to the WikiPedia 1.0 {{Grading scheme}} together with the additional Bplus class for mathematics articles. Their meaning is summarized in the following table:

[edit table]

Quality	Criteria	Reader's experience	Examples
Quality	Criteria	Editor's experience	Examples
FA `{{FA-Class}}`	Reserved exclusively for articles that have received featured article status after peer review, and meet the current criteria for featured articles.	Definitive. Outstanding, thorough article; a great source for encyclopedic information.	Trigonometric function (Mar 2, 2007) Leonhard Euler (Mar 2, 2007)
FA `{{FA-Class}}`		No further editing is necessary unless new published information has come to light; but further improvements to the text are often possible.
A `{{A-Class}}`	Provides a well-written, reasonably clear and complete description of the topic, as described in "How to write a great article". It should be of a length suitable for the subject, with a well-written introduction and an appropriate series of headings to break up the content. It should have sufficient external literature references, from text-books or peer-reviewed papers, rather than websites. Should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. At the stage where it could at least be considered for featured article status; corresponds to the "Wikipedia 1.0" standard.	Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-mathematician would typically find nothing wanting. May miss a few relevant points.	Fermat's last theorem (Mar 2, 2007) Regular polytope (Mar 2, 2007) Manifold (Mar 2, 2007)
A `{{A-Class}}`		Minor edits and adjustments would improve the article, particularly if brought to bear by a subject-matter expert. In particular, issues of breadth, completeness, and balance may need work. Peer-review would be helpful at this stage.
GA `{{GA-Class}}`	This class is for articles of B⁺ quality which have also passed through the good article nomination process and meet the good article standards. Note that the good article designation is not a requirement for A-Class. A-Class articles which meet good article standards should be considered for featured article status.	As good as a B⁺ article, but may also have more polished presentation, more illustrations, more detailed history, and more references.	Euclidean geometry (Mar 2, 2007) Ordinal number (Mar 2, 2007) Homotopy groups of spheres (Mar 2, 2007)
GA `{{GA-Class}}`		Further editing will clearly be helpful, but not necessary for a good reader experience.
A-BB+ `{{Bplus-Class}}`	The article has most of the elements described in "start" and may be regarded as a complete article. It is broad in its coverage, while staying focussed on the topic; it is factually accurate, verifiable and neutral; and it is well presented, both in terms of grammar, and adherence to some of the main points in the manual of style. The article is well-referenced, and is illustrated, where appropriate, by an image or images which comply with copyright guidelines. It has the potential to become a good article. Among mathematics articles these are some of the best; however, Wikipedia 1.0 does not currently have a B⁺-Class.	Useful to nearly all readers. A good treatment of the subject which attempts to be as accessible as possible, with a minimum of jargon. No obvious problems, gaps, excessive information.	René Descartes (Mar 2, 2007) Introduction to general relativity (Mar 2, 2007)
A-BB+ `{{Bplus-Class}}`		May be improved by input from experts to assess where coverage is still missing, and also by illustrations, historical background and further references. Consider peer review or nominating for good article status. If the article is not already fully wikified, now is the time.
B `{{B-Class}}`	The article has several of the elements described in "start", and usually a majority of the material needed for a complete article. Nonetheless, it has significant gaps or missing elements or references, needs substantial editing for English language usage and/or clarity, balance of content, or contains other policy problems such as copyright, neutral point of view (NPOV) or no original research (NOR). With NPOV a well written B-class may correspond to the "Wikipedia 0.5" or "usable" standard. Articles that are close to GA status but don't meet the good article criteria should be B- or B⁺-Class articles.	Useful to many, but not all, readers. An interested reader flipping through the article may feel that they generally understood the topic. However, it may not be as accessible as as it could be, or it may be inadequate for a serious student or researcher trying to use the material, who might have trouble or risk error using the article in derivative work.	Set (Mar 2, 2007) Limit (mathematics) (Mar 2, 2007) Vector space (Mar 2, 2007)
B `{{B-Class}}`		Considerable editing is still needed, including filling in some important gaps or correcting significant policy errors. Articles for which cleanup is needed will typically have this designation to start with.
Start `{{Start-Class}}`	The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a key element such as a standard infobox. For example an article on groups might cover the theory well, but be weak on history and motivation. Has at least one serious element of gathered materials, including any one of the following: a particularly useful picture or graphic multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic a subheading that fully treats an element of the topic multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article	Useful to some, provides a moderate amount of information, but many readers will need to find additional sources of information. The article clearly needs to be expanded.	Hypergraph (Mar 2, 2007) Esther Szekeres (Mar 2, 2007) Theorem (Mar 2, 2007)
Start `{{Start-Class}}`		Substantial/major editing is needed, most material for a complete article needs to be added. This article still needs to be completed, so an article cleanup tag is inappropriate at this stage.
Stub `{{Stub-Class}}`	The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work. It is usually very short, but can be of any length if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible.	Possibly useful to a mathematician who has no idea what the term meant. May be useless to a non-mathematician, or a reader only passingly familiar with the term. Ideally it is at least a brief, informed definition.	Selig Brodetsky (Mar 2, 2007) Parallel curve (Mar 2, 2007) Algebraic number theory (Mar 2, 2007)
Stub `{{Stub-Class}}`		Any editing or additional material can be helpful.
Label	Criteria	Reader's experience	Examples
Label	Criteria	Editor's experience	Examples

[edit] Small parameter setting

The small setting is looking awkward on Talk:Srinivasa Ramanujan. Can someone please take a look? Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 21:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that should be sorted now. I also implemented better support for the "field" element, although it doesn't do much at present. (Unless no field is given, in which case it ends up in Category:Unassessed-field mathematics articles)Tompw 23:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks! -- Ganeshk (talk) 23:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I've now realised there are two versions (now identical)... one is at {{maths rating/Small}}, the other is what you get if you use {{maths rating}} with "small=yes". (Talk:Srinivasa Ramanujan uses the latter)... one shouydl clearly go. I personally think the sub-page should be a sophistictaed re-direct to the "small=yes" version, but putting something like this (without line breaks):

{{maths rating|
 class={{{class}}}|
 importance={{{importance}}}|
 field={{{field}}}|
 vital={{{vital}}}|
 comment={{{commment}}}|
 small=yes}}

(Does this include all parameters?) However, this does make formatting the small version trickier, but it is perfectly do-able (as is currently demostrated). Tompw 00:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The sub-page one, {{maths rating/Small}} was created for demonstration purposes. No pages link to it. That should go. The consensus was to use the small=yes so that a single version can be maintained. -- Ganeshk (talk) 00:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adding comments

Currently, there are two ways of adding comments. One is by the "comment" parameter; the other is by placing the comment in the "/Comments" subpage (capital C, plural) of the relevant talkpage. The main problem with this is that only comments at the sub-page are listed at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Mathematics articles by quality. The sub-page comments can also be transcluded at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mathematics/Wikipedia_1.0 (e.g. Algebra page).

So, I propose that if there is no comment on the sub-page (and thus it is empty), a link to it appears in the template. Any comments via the "comments" field should be migrated over to the sub-page.

Any comments? Tompw 17:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems reasonable enough. Requires slightly more work for adding the comment. --Salix alba (talk) 17:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The "comment" or "comments" parameter is now deprecated. Geometry guy 12:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hide the comment field

Could you please, please, please add the ability to hide the comments section like template:physics does (with hidden being the default)? Witness the disaster at Talk:String theory that can result if you don't. -- Fropuff 05:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

That example bordered on vandalism (I removed it with the comment that such material belong on the actual talk page)... what I could do is set things up so that if the comment field in the template have been used, the subpage commments don't get used. How does that sound? Tompw (talk) 13:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

That could work. Although some people might be confused as to why their comments don't appear (if they use the subpage field). In any case, it would be nice to hide the comments in the event they get somewhat long winded. I don't know how hard it is. The physics template looked rather complicated. I haven't had a chance to grok it. -- Fropuff 16:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible to impose a cut-off.... I'll spend some time in my sandbox and see what I can do. Tompw (talk) 20:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Style changes

I have made some stylistic changes to the math rating template in my sandbox. this page shows the new version, and the code is here. Unless there are serious objections, I'll migrate these over to the template itself.

It would be easy for me to add the "Comments hidden" option at the same time, if there is still desire for it. CMummert · talk 18:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I implemented the changes this morning. CMummert · talk 15:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] field=image and field=list

I think that we should add another field for images, or (better) make a different template for math images, since the rating doesn't work for them. In the same way, the rating system doesn't apply well to lists. CMummert · talk 15:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm half with you... lists have a quality and a field, but not really an importance; Images have a field, but not really an importance or a quality. So, I think it should be a case of having importance=list and importance=image as options. Further, this could (sort of) bedone with no changes to the template, due to the existence of {{Image-Class}} and {{List-Class}} (See examples below) Tompw (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that the alternate "importance" tags are good enough to allow for automated sorting of images and lists away from articles. If nobody objects, I would like to rewrite the instructions for the template to be more clear and to include some things like thee importances that are not documented. CMummert · talk 21:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds a good plan to me. (Btw, I've put in an edit request for {{Image-Class}} and {{List-Class}} to make the colours more distinct). Tompw (talk) 21:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links and categories

I've made some minor changes to the template, so that the class and importance link to the relevant mathematics categories. I hope I did it right. I've also moved the category assignments to the <includeonly> part for clarity. I am still puzzled by the way the Class, and then the Field appear to be on a slightly higher level. Geometry guy 19:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I see the same behavior from the field cell, but I don't know what causes it. CMummert · talk 00:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it by removing the unicode carriage returns. I've no idea what they were for. I'll check out a few talk pages to make sure everything is okay now. Geometry guy 10:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Now comments do not seem to work in concert with vital articles. Anyone know what it wrong? Geometry guy 23:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The wikitable syntax does not ignore whitespace, and the template was adding an extra newline in a poor location. I think I have fixed it now. Tracking down these errors is quite difficult; I plan to rewrite this template someday using HTML table syntax instead of wikitable syntax, which will make it much easier to debug. CMummert · talk 01:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, debugging this is a pain, as fixing one thing causes another to go wrong. The main problem is to introduce an extra newline if a test is true, but not if it is false. I've finally managed to do this using unicode newlines (I think this is the only way, because wiki-syntax seems to ignore whitespace after tags, pipes and links). I've tested almost every possible combination of conditions, and the template seems to be okay now. Geometry guy 12:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent updates

There have been a few changes to this template recently.

The term "importance" has been partially replaced by "priority". The intention is essentially that "importance" should correspond to "quality", and "priority" should correspond to "class", but the match is not yet exact.
Bplus has been enhanced and so is now folded in with GA for WP 1.0, not B.
There is a show/hide facility for comments. Since there is only one /Comments page, it has to be shared by all WikiProjects, and for some articles it can become quite long. Some editors have complained that this makes the ratings templates too long.
A remark has been added to clarify that all editors should feel free to update ratings which are inaccurate.

I hope these changes are helpful. Geometry guy 00:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template basing-off question

How do you make it so that the inclusion of the template automatically takes care of putting in the appropriate category? (I ask because at WP:NUM we tried basing Template:Numbers rating off this template and the importance categories are completely empty despite template inclusion, e.g., Talk:10 (number)). PrimeFan 22:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at the end of this template


{{#switch:{{#if:{{{priority|}}}|{{{priority}}}|{{{importance}}}}}
 |Top|top=[[Category:Top-Priority mathematics articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]
 |High|high=[[Category:High-Priority mathematics articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]
 |Mid|mid=[[Category:Mid-Priority mathematics articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]
 |Low|low=[[Category:Low-Priority mathematics articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]
 |NA|na=
 |[[Category:Unassessed importance mathematics articles|{{PAGENAME}}]][[Category:Unassessed mathematics articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]
}}

there is similar code for class as well. The importance parapeter is are used twice, once to display in the message box and one to place it in the appropriate category. --Salix alba (talk) 22:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] frequentlyviewed=?

I noticed that Talk:Quasiperfect number‎ recently acquired this template with the designation "frequentlyviewed=no", and the included box now shows "One of the 500 most frequently viewed mathematics articles."

Please can someone document how this parameter should be used? Hv (talk) 14:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can add that. The short story is: it shouldn't be added by individual editors, it will be added by a bot based on a list of article hitcounts. But the template code here should be fixed so that if they do put "frequentlyviewed=no", nothing will happen. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)