Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 28 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.Sign up
Reorganize user talk multi-level warnings #412
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.
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
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.
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
This was referenced
Jun 16, 2018
There is a "squash and merge" button, by the way -- no need to wait for a squash by the proposer
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.
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.