Module talk:Articles by class

Rename?

I have now merged Module:Articles by importance into this module by move out the common functionality into a separate function and calling this with different configuration options. It would make sense to rename this module to something more generic (taking "quality" out) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:57, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Planning to move to Module:Articles by class unless anyone has a better idea — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

format=toc

Potential removal of this argument:

Relevant discussion at

→ Template talk:Articles by Quality#format=toc

Aluxosm (talk) 09:47, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Custom arguments

The |custom1= and |custom2= arguments are used so rarely that they might be able to be removed. I'm currently searching through them and removing any that use pre-existing classes (like SIA).

Aluxosm (talk) 09:19, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This feature either uses {{Importance}} or {{Class}} to style and display the text in the table. The importance template is more permitting and lets you put anything in there, but the class template is more strict and just breaks if it's not a known type; all of the known types however are already accounted for by this module. See their use here: Wikipedia:Department of Fun#Quality and importance assessment. Maybe we could just dumb down the logic and get rid of the template calls so a little fun can still be had haha. Aluxosm (talk) 09:34, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In your first post you argue for the removal of these parameters. In your second post you seem to asking for more freedom to input anything? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:54, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for confusing, was mostly joking because the only user of these options that I could see was the Department of Fun 😆. I've since gone through and cleaned up all of the old uses where they were just set to a class that's no longer used; in doing so, I only came across a single other place: Category:National Register of Historic Places articles by importance (Related-importance). Not sure what the best course of action is but I think it's probably best to leave the parameters undocumented. Aluxosm (talk) 14:30, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh, for some reason I thought that the calls to the {{Importance}} and {{Class}} templates only originated from these options, so in removing them you could trim a load of code. Obviously not the case though so there's no drama keeping this in for testing and for the couple edge cases. Definitely no rush on this bugfix at least, as |custom1= is only used on two pages, and |custom2= isn't actually used anywhere! Aluxosm (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just get rid of custom2? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:29, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not fussed, up to you. Apologies for the flip-floppy thread! I just went down a rabbit hole after reading the code wrong 😅 it did lead me to fixing a load of the uses of this template though so it wasn't for nothing! Aluxosm (talk) 02:17, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removed custom2 on the sandbox. Also made custom and alias for custom1 — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:38, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Root categories and 'Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments'

Relevant discussion at

→ Template talk:Category class extended#Purpose

Should the root categories (TOPIC articles by quality & TOPIC articles by importance) be automatically added to Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments? Just like how the sub-categories are currently added to their parents. It would be one less thing for the WikiProject catalyst tool I'm working on to handle, but I can understand not wanting to jam everything into this module. Aluxosm (talk) 13:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A root category would be a good idea, but WP:1.0 is pretty much a historical/obsolete page — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:17, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware, having these in Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments is vital for User:WP 1.0 bot to function correctly. I think that it only actually uses the "root" TOPIC articles by quality categories to work out the list of pages connected to a WikiProject, ignoring TOPIC articles by importance, but having both in there is definitely the norm and may be required by other tools/workflows.

If the Wikipedia 1.0 assessments category was applied by this module it would make any future categorisation changes easier.

...I think I may have confused things by using the word "root" here; I've added a note to the catalyst tool's docs to hopefully clear it up. Aluxosm (talk) 21:03, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, please feel free to add it to the module — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 05:43, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this will do it, but please test it — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:38, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]