Template talk:Articles by Quality Pie Graph

Comment

The template logic doesn't work, it produces highly misleading results. For FA, the category counts actual articles, while for other classes it counts subcategories (with up to thousands of articles in it), e.g. Category:B-Class articles. User:WP 1.0 bot updates the table automatically, I suggest to let the bot update this pie chart as well. It will show mainly Stub and Start articles, obviously. --mfb (talk) 09:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Completely broken

This is completely broken, isn't it? The pie charts this template generates all have equally sized sectors. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi This, that and the other. Yes it is broken. I noticed this last month and commented on it someplace but do not know where. Here is the last working version. Can you fix it PrimeHunter? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 10:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't worked with the graph extension. Better to ask Yurik and That Video Shop Guy who have edited the template. I guess it worked better at the time of their edits but something else has changed the way it displays now. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This, that and the other, PrimeHunter, Checkingfax fixed. --Yurik (talk) 12:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Yurik! I've been trying to find time to fix it. - That Video Shop Guy (talk) 13:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, any time )) --Yurik (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Yurik, This, that and the other, PrimeHunter, and Checkingfax: I'm sorry to report that it seems not to be working again... T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 01:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Evolution and evolvability: The pie graphs were missing from Template:Articles by Quality Pie Graph but appeared after I purged the page. If you see a problem on a page then please link the page and say what you see. The February report was about equally sized sectors and not missing graphs. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: Sorry, you're quite right that I didn't give sufficient info! The version transcluded into Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment as each slice as equal size. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 01:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Evolution and evolvability: It seems to be working as intended. Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment#Statistics transcludes Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Statistics which lists nearly equal numbers to the right of a pie graph made with {{Articles by Quality Pie Graph|topic=|unassessed-show=yes}}. But {{Articles by Quality Pie Graph}} says:

|topic= (required) - set so that the quality categories are: "Foo-Class topic articles".

With an empty topic it counts articles in Category:A-Class articles, Category:GA-Class articles, Category:C-Class articles and so on. These categories have nearly the same number of members, because the members are not articles but the respective categories for different WikiProjects. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok, I think I get it now! So when on the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment#Statistics (without |topic=) it's actually displaying the relative numbers of wikiprojects within each class category (e.g. how many entries in "A-Class_articles". Unless there's a way to get it to count the number of entries in the nested categories, I feel like it might be worth removing it from that page, since it's not illustrating particularly useful data. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 03:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index#Pie chart is off. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Articles by Importance

@Yurik, I am trying to create a similar template to this one that shows articles by importance. I copied the code to my user pgae here and made some changes. However, I have not been able to get it to work. I am not a pro when it comes to templates and expressions. Seeing your comments above, I was wondering if you had a chance to look it over and see if you know what is wrong? Thanks for any help you can provide. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzo fan2007: your changes are fairly complex, so it might take me a while to figure it out. I would recommend you to try something different first: open Special:GraphSandbox, and copy the entire content of the original graph from the opening "{" until the closing "}", without all the extra stuff like <includeonly>{{#tag:graph| and the }}</includeonly><noinclude>. It will show you the graph in the left screen the moment you paste it. If its not, you are not copying the right thing. The raw JSON (without all the template fluff) is shown at the bottom. This way, you can change one little thing at a time and instantly see if it works ok or not. --Yurik (talk) 01:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Yurik! I have never seen the GraphSandbox before!! I will try your recommendations and see if I can figure it out. I appreciate the help! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well that did it @Yurik: see {{Articles by Importance Pie Graph}}. Thanks again for pointing me in the right direciton, I appreciate the help! Please feel free to review and edit if necessary! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 05:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, looks great! Let me know if you run into other problems :) --Yurik (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Rename

Is anyone opposed to renaming this template to {{Articles by Quality Pie Graph}} and tagging {{AbQ Pie}} with {{Redr}} (from template shortcut)? I recently used this naming convention for {{Articles by Importance Pie Graph}} and {{AbI Pie}}. The new name is a little more descriptive and intuitive, and obviously the shortcut would still function correctly. Just wanted to see where everyone stands before I went about making the move. Thanks for any input! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I made the move :) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]