New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Reorganize user talk multi-level warnings #412

Open
wants to merge 6 commits into
base: master
from

Conversation

Projects
None yet
6 participants
@rchard2scout

rchard2scout commented Mar 11, 2018

The lists of warning in modules/twinklewarn.js were a mess, with many recent additions missing. I've completely revamped the list of multi-level warnings, and it's now completely up to date with WP:UTM.

I've left the "Common warnings" as they were. After that, I've followed the categorization as on WP:UTM, and I've included templates in the subsections that are also in "Common warnings". This means that some templates are included twice, but I don't think that's a big issue. The only case where I haven't followed WP:UTM is that I've merged "Vandalism" and "General disruptive editing" into "Vandalism and disruptive editing", because those only contain 2 and 1 templates respectively. "Vandalism and disruptive editing" disappear for level 3 and higher, because they're completely redundant with "Common warnings".

This also closes #402.

I've only just noticed the discussion on #278, over 2 years ago, which said that little-used templates are excluded. I've decided to ignore that for now, I think that especially with this categorization, there aren't any excessively long lists.

rchard2scout added some commits Mar 11, 2018

@mc10

Left some review comments.

"uw-agf3": {
label: "Not assuming good faith",
summary: "Warning: Not assuming good faith"
"Inserting factual inaccuriacies and libel": {

This comment has been minimized.

@mc10

mc10 Mar 14, 2018

Collaborator

Ditto.

label: "Vandalism",
summary: "General note: Unconstructive editing"
label: "Blatant vandalism",
summary: "General note: Blatant vandalism"

This comment has been minimized.

@mc10

mc10 Mar 14, 2018

Collaborator

I think this is a bit strong for uw-vandalism1; I'd prefer "Unconstructive editing" for this level, but it seems okay for later levels.

This comment has been minimized.

@rchard2scout

rchard2scout Mar 14, 2018

I took the description straight from WP:UTM, but I agree that this wording is too strong for uw-vandalism1.

"Vandalism and disruptive editing": {
"uw-vandalism1": {
label: "Blatant vandalism",
summary: "General note: Blatant vandalism"

This comment has been minimized.

@mc10

mc10 Mar 14, 2018

Collaborator

Same comment as above.

"uw-harass4im": {
label: "Harassment of other users",
summary: "Only warning: Harassment of other users"
"Inserting factual inaccuriacies and libel": {

This comment has been minimized.

@mc10

mc10 Mar 14, 2018

Collaborator

Ditto.

summary: "General note: Adding inappropriate external links"
}
},
"Inserting factual inaccuriacies and libel": {

This comment has been minimized.

@mc10

mc10 Mar 14, 2018

Collaborator

s/inaccuriacies/inaccuracies

summary: "Caution: Adding spam links"
}
},
"Inserting factual inaccuriacies and libel": {

This comment has been minimized.

@mc10

mc10 Mar 14, 2018

Collaborator

Ditto.

"uw-harass4": {
label: "Harassment of other users",
summary: "Final warning: Harassment of other users"
"Inserting factual inaccuriacies and libel": {

This comment has been minimized.

@mc10

mc10 Mar 14, 2018

Collaborator

Ditto.

Applied mc10's suggestions
s/inaccuriacies/inaccuracies
for uw-vandalism1: s/Blatant vandalism/Unconstructive editing
@MusikAnimal

MusikAnimal requested changes Mar 14, 2018 edited

Could you squash these commits, and prefix your commit message with the module name (per our secret convention :) ?

So something like:

warn: updated wording of warnings

added warnings for uw-plotsum, ... (whatever else)

Addendum -- let's first decide if we really want to add all of these. See below

@MusikAnimal

MusikAnimal requested changes Mar 14, 2018 edited

Thanks for helping out!

However I question if some of these warnings should go in Twinkle, even with the revised categorization. We should talk first. Twinkle is quite cluttered as it is. We should not introduce warnings that are rarely used, and make it harder to find the ones that are more commonly used. I don't think it was the intention to match WP:UTM verbatim.

"uw-taxonomy1": {
label: "Disrupting the taxonomy templates",
summary: "General note: Disrupting the taxonomy templates"
},

This comment has been minimized.

@MusikAnimal

MusikAnimal Mar 14, 2018

Collaborator

This is certainly a rarity (broadly speaking), and doesn't need to be cluttering the Twinkle interface.

summary: "General note: Not adhering to neutral point of view"
"uw-thumb1": {
label: "Using thumbnails in Infoboxes",
summary: "General note: Using thumbnails in Infoboxes"

This comment has been minimized.

@MusikAnimal

MusikAnimal Mar 14, 2018

Collaborator

Questionable, also pretty rare?

"uw-color1": {
label: "Adding non-compliant colours",
summary: "General note: Adding non-compliant colours"
},

This comment has been minimized.

@MusikAnimal

MusikAnimal Mar 14, 2018

Collaborator

Not for Twinkle, I don't think... how many people know when to use this?

summary: "General note: Uploading unencyclopedic images"
}
}/*,
"To be removed from Twinkle": {
"uw-redirect1": {
label: "Creating malicious redirects",
summary: "General note: Creating malicious redirects"
},

This comment has been minimized.

@MusikAnimal

MusikAnimal Mar 14, 2018

Collaborator

I agree with the original code that this probably doesn't belong in Twinkle. How often does this happen? Wouldn't "uw-vandalism1" or the like work just as well, if not the speedy deletion notice?

@SoWhy

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

SoWhy commented Jun 14, 2018

What's the status on this? Handling of #402 is pretty important imho since this is a problem more and more

@MusikAnimal

This comment has been minimized.

Collaborator

MusikAnimal commented Jun 15, 2018

I don't oppose reorganization but I do oppose adding templates that are rarely used. uw-paid seems fine, but uw-taxonomy and uw-color, not so much. This is just my opinion of course :)

@SoWhy

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

SoWhy commented Jun 15, 2018

@MusikAnimal I agree. @rchard2scout Would you be willing to make the Changes MusikAnimal requested? That way, the uncontroversial changes can be merged and the rest can be discussed separately without holding up necessary additions like uw-paid[1-4]

@SoWhy SoWhy referenced this pull request Jun 16, 2018

Closed

UNTESTED: Fix #402, fix #424 #423

@ToBeFree

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

ToBeFree commented Jun 16, 2018

Current changes: https://github.com/azatoth/twinkle/pull/412/files

@MusikAnimal: These seem to be okay, except for the commented parts, which I agree with. Can we merge this pull request and then remove the unnecessary lines afterwards, so that there is no further action needed by rchard2scout?

This closes #423 as well

summary: "General note: Addition of defamatory content"
"uw-subtle1": {
label: "Subtle vandalism",
summary: "General note: Subtle vandalism"

This comment has been minimized.

@ToBeFree

ToBeFree Jun 16, 2018

Contributor

While okay in the Twinkle menu, "vandalism" should not appear in the edit summary for level 1

This comment has been minimized.

@ToBeFree

ToBeFree Jun 16, 2018

Contributor

I'd fix this after merging instead of waiting for a fix here.

label: "Vandalism",
summary: "Caution: Unconstructive editing"
label: "Blatant vandalism",
summary: "Caution: Blatant vandalism"

This comment has been minimized.

@ToBeFree

ToBeFree Jun 16, 2018

Contributor

I think that this is still too strong for level 2, and belongs to level 3.

I'd fix this after merging instead of waiting for a fix here.

label: "Vandalism",
summary: "Warning: Vandalism"
label: "Blatant vandalism",
summary: "Warning: Blatant vandalism"

This comment has been minimized.

@ToBeFree

ToBeFree Jun 16, 2018

Contributor

"Blatant" is used as information and clarification in the Twinkle interface. It does not belong into the public edit summary.

This comment has been minimized.

@ToBeFree

ToBeFree Jun 16, 2018

Contributor

Feel free to merge unmodified, I'll fix this shortly afterwards. It won't hurt and seems to be the easiest and fastest solution. 😄

},
"uw-npa3": {
label: "Personal attack directed at a specific editor",
summary: "Warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor"

This comment has been minimized.

@ToBeFree

ToBeFree Jun 16, 2018

Contributor

Almost sounds inviting: Next time, please attack multiple editors instead. 😉 So this, too, is not useful in the edit summary but rather only in the Twinkle interface.

This comment has been minimized.

@ToBeFree

ToBeFree Jun 16, 2018

Contributor

Feel free to merge unmodified, I'll fix this shortly afterwards. It won't hurt and seems to be the easiest and fastest solution. 😄

@ToBeFree

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

ToBeFree commented Jun 16, 2018

There is a "squash and merge" button, by the way -- no need to wait for a squash by the proposer

https://help.github.com/articles/configuring-commit-squashing-for-pull-requests/

@atlight

This comment has been minimized.

Collaborator

atlight commented Jun 16, 2018

I'm not a fan of this pull request, I have to say. I'd rather start from scratch. My main concerns are: why are things being shuffled from category to category (this is rather user-hostile), and why are lots of rarely-used templates being added? A lot of careful thought went into curating this list about 7 years ago, and while I'm certainly not opposed to adding uw-paid (since paid editing has emerged as a key issue since then) I would prefer to see rationales for the other templates. Certainly I cannot merge a pull request that adds templates only of use to a few editors in narrow situations, like uw-taxonomy1.

@ToBeFree

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

ToBeFree commented Jun 17, 2018

Edit: Okay, you've pointed out more problems than I had been taking into account.

@ToBeFree

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

ToBeFree commented Jun 17, 2018

General restructuring of the list seems to be okay to me. I personally would merge the request and remove all the unnecessary templates afterwards, to fix the current problem of two conflicting pull requests.

@atlight

This comment has been minimized.

Collaborator

atlight commented Jun 17, 2018

There's nothing inherently wrong with two conflicting pull requests; I wouldn't stress about that if I were you.

@rchard2scout: If you are interested in addressing the issues in my comment above and the review comments, please let us know. Otherwise we can close it and work on this issue elsewhere.

@Amorymeltzer Amorymeltzer referenced this pull request Aug 23, 2018

Merged

Add uw-paid series #434

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment