User talk:ABSOLON: Difference between revisions
Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
:::P.S. it would also need the READ in addition to the LOOK and TAP.--[[User:ABSOLON|ABSOLON]] ([[User talk:ABSOLON|talk]]) 00:43, 22 June 2014 (CDT) |
:::P.S. it would also need the READ in addition to the LOOK and TAP.--[[User:ABSOLON|ABSOLON]] ([[User talk:ABSOLON|talk]]) 00:43, 22 June 2014 (CDT) |
||
::::The form idea could work. I'm happy to share what my Elanthipedia Items script already looks for. However, because there are so many "false positives," I'm actually thinking about editing my script to create fewer automated tags. (For example, currently, if the script sees the word "ebony", there is no way for the script to know whether ebony is a material or just a color. Right now, the script fills out ebony for both the material and the color, requiring me to go and remove any inappropriate tags. This can add up to a lot of work.) Basically, what I am thinking is to produce a list that would check for only unambiguous terms, requiring less intensive error-checking. The downside is that it would increase work on the other end (requiring me to manually add more missing tags). Sometimes I wonder if we should simplify our tagging standards. --[[User:ISHARON|ISHARON]] ([[User talk:ISHARON|talk]]) 19:53, 26 June 2014 (CDT) |
::::The form idea could work. I'm happy to share what my Elanthipedia Items script already looks for. However, because there are so many "false positives," I'm actually thinking about editing my script to create fewer automated tags. (For example, currently, if the script sees the word "ebony", there is no way for the script to know whether ebony is a material or just a color. Right now, the script fills out ebony for both the material and the color, requiring me to go and remove any inappropriate tags. This can add up to a lot of work.) Basically, what I am thinking is to produce a list that would check for only unambiguous terms, requiring less intensive error-checking. The downside is that it would increase work on the other end (requiring me to manually add more missing tags). Sometimes I wonder if we should simplify our tagging standards. --[[User:ISHARON|ISHARON]] ([[User talk:ISHARON|talk]]) 19:53, 26 June 2014 (CDT) |
||
Re: ambiguous tags. It could still check for these, but automatically mark them as ambiguous. E.g. MTag, CTag, STag, and ATag. Manually editing them would be easier that way at least, since you wouldn't have to compare the tag lists to find duplicates manually. The ATag could even simply exist in the item entry without needing to display it on the page, except perhaps flagging the item as an 'Item with Ambiguous Tags.' Then you could still post your items without having to worry about backlog and just go through and move ambiguous tags to the appropriate tags at your or someone else's leisure.--[[User:ABSOLON|ABSOLON]] ([[User talk:ABSOLON|talk]]) 03:59, 27 June 2014 (CDT) |
|||
==So....== |
==So....== |
Revision as of 02:59, 27 June 2014
Automatic Item Tagging
This is going to sound like a strange question, but would you have any interest in the weapon, shield, armor, and item page templates automatically generate material, color, and symbol tags? This is by far the most time-consuming part of adding item pages. (I wrote a script that does everything else. It attempts to create tags as well, but it requires a lot of cleaning up and error checking.) Tags are literally the reason that I have text files of hundreds of Elanthipedia item forms that I have not yet posted.
For example, this item from Tildi's Flowers has this mind-boggling array of tags:
|name=fragile wirework crown displaying shimmering chaos chalcedony lantana flowers |noun=crown |look=Thin palladium wires form an elaborate knotwork of interlocking loops. Twists of the silvery-white metal curl out and upwards from the headband, creating the base for each flowering cluster comprised of tiny gemstone florets. Dramatically varying in coloration, the naturally formed combination of hawk's and tiger's eye displays a wide range of colors from pale to dark blue, streaked with chaotic swirls of rusty red, gold and rich brown hues, ensuring each flower is unique in appearance. |MTag=palladium, chaos chalcedony, chalcedony, hawk's eye, tiger's eye |CTag=rust red, rust, red, rich brown, brown, gold, yellow, dark blue, blue, silvery-white, silver, white |STag=lantana flower, knotwork
Manual of Style's standards for item tags: As you can see, we currently tag both the more specific version and the more general version (e.g., "chaos chalcedony" gets tagged "chaos chalcedony, chalcedony"). The same goes for colors. This makes the item search feature work for both general and specific queries. It also creates extra work.
Let me know if you're interested; I don't have the wiki-fu to undertake something like this myself. I have lists of commonly seen materials, colors, symbols, etc. My AIM is IsharonDR. --ISHARON (talk) 18:35, 21 June 2014 (CDT)
- I have to wrap my head around how best to go about this. It should be able to be done, but I'm not sure my wiki-fu is entirely up to the task either. I think similar to how Item Properties work, a separate template ItemTags would be included in each of the Item, Weapon, Armor and Shield templates that matches the description and item name for a list of descriptors should do the trick... but I'd have to think how that would interact or interfere with the ability to manually add or edit tags.--ABSOLON (talk) 22:07, 21 June 2014 (CDT)
- It could be done. It actually wouldn't be all that complicated, just time consuming. You'd basically use the #pos parser function to check the name and look for each item for every item you want cataloged. Problem is a) you'd have to add in everything you wanted it to catch, and b) I have no idea how resource intensive it would be. I suspect it would be pretty bad, compounded by the fact we have a LOT of item pages. -CARAAMON (talk) 00:29, 22 June 2014 (CDT)
- Actually, I just had an idea. Would a form you could cut and paste the name and look into, run it, then cut and paste the output from into the item form be useful? That would cut down needing to run it in the background every time an item is edited or refreshed. -CARAAMON (talk) 00:31, 22 June 2014 (CDT)
- I was thinking that myself actually. Basically the same thing as the script Isharon is already using, but a part of elanthipedia so that anyone could make use of it without needing a separate tool.--ABSOLON (talk) 00:35, 22 June 2014 (CDT)
- P.S. it would also need the READ in addition to the LOOK and TAP.--ABSOLON (talk) 00:43, 22 June 2014 (CDT)
- The form idea could work. I'm happy to share what my Elanthipedia Items script already looks for. However, because there are so many "false positives," I'm actually thinking about editing my script to create fewer automated tags. (For example, currently, if the script sees the word "ebony", there is no way for the script to know whether ebony is a material or just a color. Right now, the script fills out ebony for both the material and the color, requiring me to go and remove any inappropriate tags. This can add up to a lot of work.) Basically, what I am thinking is to produce a list that would check for only unambiguous terms, requiring less intensive error-checking. The downside is that it would increase work on the other end (requiring me to manually add more missing tags). Sometimes I wonder if we should simplify our tagging standards. --ISHARON (talk) 19:53, 26 June 2014 (CDT)
Re: ambiguous tags. It could still check for these, but automatically mark them as ambiguous. E.g. MTag, CTag, STag, and ATag. Manually editing them would be easier that way at least, since you wouldn't have to compare the tag lists to find duplicates manually. The ATag could even simply exist in the item entry without needing to display it on the page, except perhaps flagging the item as an 'Item with Ambiguous Tags.' Then you could still post your items without having to worry about backlog and just go through and move ambiguous tags to the appropriate tags at your or someone else's leisure.--ABSOLON (talk) 03:59, 27 June 2014 (CDT)
So....
How'd you like to be a moderator? You seem to have a pretty good understanding of everything we need, and we can always use more hands. Gimmie an IM if you're interested. -CARAAMON (talk) 23:39, 18 June 2014 (CDT)
- Welcome aboard, don't screw it up. ;P -CARAAMON (talk) 00:32, 22 June 2014 (CDT)
- Thanks! Glad to be aboard.--ABSOLON (talk) 00:37, 22 June 2014 (CDT)
- Congrats! --TEVESHSZAT (talk) 11:22, 22 June 2014 (CDT)
- Congratulations! --BLADEDBUTTERFLY (talk)
- Thanks! Glad to be aboard.--ABSOLON (talk) 00:37, 22 June 2014 (CDT)