Forum:Lock Condition Categorisation

Forums: Index > Project Discussion > Lock Condition Categorisation

Lock Condition Categorisation

A reckoning is not to be postponed indefinitely.

I'd like to discuss whether or not Lock conditions (i.e., the |Locked with = parameter) should categorise pages into the respective quality categories.

Currently, the de facto standard is to use {{IL}} in that field, rather than {{Unlock}} or {{Use}}, presumably because a branch locking if you have a certain level of a quality is not the same as "[requiring] this quality (or specific levels of it)". However, this has the consequence of leaving the categories not quite complete.

I'm of the opinion that pages with a Locked with requirement do have a requirement on the given quality/qualities, and they should be listed in the category pages.

There could purrhaps be an exception made for the case where you need exactly 0 of a quality (i.e., having any level of the quality fails the requirement), as opposed to the case where you need the quality between 0-X.

This has been an outstanding issue for quite some time, and I'd like to finally arrive at a consensus. Let me know your thoughts on this matter. - Alan (talk) 15:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I think there's two problems to be solved here. One is Editor guidance, and the other is data modeling. As one might expect, I have ideas for how SMW can be involved in the latter.

For editor guidance, I think it's important to keep the rules simple. A lot of pages get filled by copy-pasting and fiddling, not by reading documentation. A policy to use {{IL}} in this case but {{Use}} in that case will have uneven adoption. I'd rather something simple like "{{Use}} across the board," or making a new Lock template.

Alright, data modeling.

Our current model is that a Quality X has an "X Uses" category, which is an undifferentiated collection of all the ways that X might be used. But we also model differentiated uses, because we have "X Text Uses" and "X Formula Uses" categories for specific types of uses. But, as it turns out, we currently do not connect those! Ideally "X Text Uses" is a subcategory of "X Uses" but that's usually not the case. Someone would need to manually go and create the "X Text Uses" category page and put in the appropriate category, and that doesn't happen.

My view is this: using Categories doesn't do a good job of representing different ways that a quality might be used. A single category is undifferentiated, and I don't see a good way of managing sub-categories. And the way a quality gets used is important information that a wiki-reader will probably want to know, so I would like to find some way to include it.

Semantic MediaWiki properties gives us some tools for modeling these relationships. One way (which I currently think is the best) is something like: [[Uses::Rostygold;Unlock]]. So putting the "type" of use as a second (text) value in the relationship. This makes it easier to denote different ways a quality gets used: Unlock, Lock, Text, Formula, Challenge, etc. (The set of allowable values can be closed.)

Naturally the point of having this data in the Wiki is to display it on the Quality/item page, as we currently do with {{Category tree}}. I put some notes in a separate forum post about my Grand Plans for a Property-based replacement. Not having looked too hard, I think it should be not-much-harder to get the "Use type" to display as an additional piece of data. Meaning when the tree gets expanded, you could see (Unlock) or (Lock, Text) next to the action names showing how they're used.

Which, long story short, means that I propose a dedicated Lock template for that use rather than {{IL}}, and the difference will show up on quality pages.

- PSGarak (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I mostly agree with the above. I'd rather have have many separate subcategories than have everything lumped in one. I have some gripes with how the wording on a requirement tooltip can influence if it's sorted in the Unlock or Lock template even if the exact ranges can match, but maybe it's not that big of a deal if the usage rules are consistent and everything is accessible from the same page but listed separately. TFF (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

FYI, I just found this unused template: Template:QualityCategories. May be helpful in thinking about how we want to display that information.

And yeah, I am in favor of the Lock proposal. -- RagCall (talk) 09:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Followup question: what exactly is the current roadmap, so to speak? Are we replacing all instances of, say, Locked with {{IL|...}} 5 with Locked with {{Lock|...|5}} once the Lock template is life? -- RagCall (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay, so Template:Lock is now implemented in most articles. I would like to also store the value of the second parameter as text. See staging:Property:Uses2 (didn't want to edit Property:Uses for that). Can anyone think of a way how this could break things? Otherwise I propose we go ahead with that. -- RagCall (talk) 08:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)