Module talk:WikiProject banner Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Module:WikiProject banner. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Why do we need Listas?

I understand the purpose of listas, so that talk pages are properly categorized. However, since it seems to be causing a fair bit of trouble in some instances and, in my opinion, isn't widely used enough to make sense, couldn't DEFAULTSORT just be used on all the pages, separating the sorting function from the WikiProject Banners? The DEFAULTSORT could go at the page top, to avoid getting mixed in with other text. -Drilnoth (talk) 03:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

{{{small}}} and template length

Is there any way to make text display differently based on whether or not it has the |small=yes parameter? The template in question is {{D&D}} (just trying to give Martin some more fun :) ), and at WT:DND it looks really bad because of its length. Could there be some kind of |SMALL_TEXT parameter for when designing templates so that shorter text can be used when the banner is "small"? Thanks. -Drilnoth (talk) 03:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This was actually something that I was going to propose once. However the small form is not so widely used so I am not sure if it's worth it. In the meantime you can do it manually using a parser function, for example [1]. Martin^msgj 09:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah... thanks. I wasn't completely sure whether or not that would work in combination with the Meta template. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Since this can be so easily set by doing {{#if:{{{small|}}}| Small text | Big text }}, and could be justifiably applied to all the text parameters (|TF_4_SMALL_TEXT= anyone?) it makes infinitely more sense to do it as shown above. Vis number of small banners, Category:Small talk page templates is currently only populated by WPBannerMeta banners. I'm seriously considering unsupporting small altogether, although I know that will raise a lot of hackles. Happy‑melon 18:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Taskforce hook and hide subpage

I recently implemented {{WPBannerMeta}} on {{WPMED}}, and I came across two inconsistencies in this template involving the taskforce hook. First, when task forces are specified using the hook, category checks are not done to insure their existence. I would expect the error messages to be displayed for missing categories, just as they are for task forces used by the built-in parameters. Second, after I added the /hide subpage to suppress the category error messages, the task forces specified using the hook are no longer displayed at {{WPMED}}. Everything still appears to function properly, but it would be nice to display all of the available task forces when looking at {{WPMED}}. --Scott Alter 22:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your first point, this is not something that is supported yet. Until recently there were no checks done on taskforce categories at all. Now the main 5 are checked. What you can do in the meantime is rotate their positions in the sandbox to check 5 at a time.
About the second point, this seems weird and unintended. I'll look into it. Martin^msgj 22:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't connected to /hide. It was just a BANNER_NAME paramter incorrectly set. I've fixed it for you. Martin^msgj 22:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that. I'm pretty sure that all of the task forces were displayed before I created the hide subpage, but since it is working now, I guess it doesn't really matter. --Scott Alter 22:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Doing sanity-checks for things added by hooks is probably possible, but certainly rather complicated. I'll have to have a think about it... Happy‑melon 18:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Migrating Template:WPAVIATION

I would like to switch Template:WPAVIATION over to this code. The only thing stopping me from already having done this is the fact that out b-class checklist has only 5 items, the same as the Military history checklist, and not the 6 I thought the meta required. But I just found Template:WPBannerMeta/class and am wondering if I'm reading it right. Can it be used to incorporate our style of checklist? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 20:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you can implement it with the five items. Alternatively you could use six items but set the 6th to "yes" by default so that the existing articles are not affected. That might be confusing though. Martin 21:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, looking at Template:WPBannerMeta/class, it doesn't look like the 6th parameter is currently checked for the B class assessment. That might be a bug in the WPBannerMeta code. For more complicated banners such as WPAVIATION, it's alway good to start the changes in a sandbox version first and see how it goes. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

That is indeed a bug, now

Fixed. How well do the 5 milhist criteria map onto the 6 WP1.0 criteria? Happy‑melon 22:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks like it's just that they don't use b6. -- WOSlinker (talk) 08:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

An option in core to use a custom bchecklist, just like the custom class would would (I think). Change

{{#if:{{{B_CHECKLIST|}}}|
{{WPBannerMeta/bchecklist|class={{{class|}}}|b1={{{b1|}}}|b2={{{b2|}}}|b3={{{b3|}}}|b4={{{b4|}}}|b5={{{b5|}}}|b6={{{b6|}}} }}
}}

To

{{#if:{{{B_CHECKLIST|}}}|{{#ifexist:{{{BANNER_NAME}}}/bchecklist
|{{ {{{BANNER_NAME}}}/bchecklist|class={{{class|}}}|b1={{{b1|}}}|b2={{{b2|}}}|b3={{{b3|}}}|b4={{{b4|}}}|b5={{{b5|}}}|b6={{{b6|}}} }}
|{{WPBannerMeta/bchecklist|class={{{class|}}}|b1={{{b1|}}}|b2={{{b2|}}}|b3={{{b3|}}}|b4={{{b4|}}}|b5={{{b5|}}}|b6={{{b6|}}} }}
}}
}}

-- WOSlinker (talk) 08:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be kinder to write a hook for |HOOK_IMPORTANCE= rather than add another #ifexist: call to all million-odd transclusions. This is the first project other than MilHist that I've seen to use the 5-point scale. Happy‑melon 08:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films and WikiProject Comics also use the 5-point scale. :) PC78 (talk) 16:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The template is almost ready for the changover, but there is just one issue (that I can see) that needs fixing. The hooks for collaboration and peer review are not giving the links I'm looking for. The "currently" link in the peer review doubles the subject page name, so the link is [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Peer_review/SUBJECTPAGENAME/SUBJECTPAGENAME]]. The same happens in the "archived" link, and the "candidate" link in the collaboration hook. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I've made a change to the sandbox banner & that should be fixed now. -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Issues to fix

I've found a few issues while trying to convert the aviation banner to this format:

the b-class checklist allow you to enter random text into the 6 items and still get a b-class assessment, even though the items are still not checked off.
"y" and "n" seem to work for some items (notes, collaboration, etc) but not for other (bclass checklist, taskforces). Our banner curently uses a subpage Template:WPAVIATION/YesNo that allow for a variety of entries (y, yes, Yes, YES, etc), can this be incorporated somehow? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 03:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I've just looked at the code to give you a definitive answer. As things stand:

For notes, any value except no, No, NO, or nO or a blank will result in a "yes";
For taskforces, any value will result in a "yes" (even "no"!) So you have to leave it blank or undefined to get a "no". We could look at changing this maybe.
For the B-class checklist:
- yes, Yes, yEs, yeS, etc. produce "criterion met"
- No, no, NO, nO produce "criterion not met"
- Anything else or blank value produces "not checked"

Hope this helps, Martin^msgj 09:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. There are a few things I think the code guru's should check and fix though. You're correct that in the B-class checklist "Anything else or blank value produces "not checked"" in the checklist, but if you were to enter the "anything else" into all 6 parameters, say by copying and pasting the example code from the banner | b1 = <yes/no> | b2 = <yes/no> | b3 = <yes/no> | b4 = <yes/no> | b5 = <yes/no> | b6 = <yes/no>, this will result in the article assessment being automatically, and incorrectly, changed to "B-Class". It may not be a big issue...unless someone decides to auto tag articles, including the checklist for future use.

Secondly, I think "y" and "n" should be added to the list of accepted terms for "yes" and "no"- Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 16:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

~~I am not able to replicate this error. Can you link to an example? Martin^msgj 16:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)~~ Oh, wait. I think I just did. I'll look further. Martin^msgj 16:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this does seem to be an error. Well done for spotting it. Although the checklist display takes anything other than "no" to mean "yes", the actual calculation of the class takes anything other than "yes" to mean "no"! I think my code in Template:WPBannerMeta/class/sandbox will fix it. Can someone just check it? Martin^msgj 16:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been tagging articles for WP:MEASURE over the last couple of days. Our project banner (which uses the checklist) certainly wouldn't let me assess any articles at B-class until I'd filled out the checklist: they were automagically placed at C-class instead. I think that includes C-class articles where I left the checklist unfilled to come back to later, but I can't quickly find an example. On the other hand, the template lets me assess at any other class (including FA!) without a problem. Physchim62 (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The error is only apparent if something other than yes or no is entered. For example setting b1-b6 as "gobbledygook" and class=b currently results in b-class. I might make one further suggestion, based on something I've seen other banners do. That if the 6 criteria are marked as satisfied, then the article is classified as B-class even if class=start or class=C. Any thoughts on this? Martin^msgj 17:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

No. I think it's an important freedom of the project reviewer not to give B-class even if the criteria are fulfilled. Such a situation should be rare, but I don't think we should make it technically impossible. Physchim62 (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The changes you made in class/sandbox nearly work but the b1..b6 parameters need to be put though the lc: thingy somewhere. It may be better to do that in WPBannerMeta or core before it is passed over to class. -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed I hope. Thanks for the lc reminder. I couldn't avoid doing it twice though. It seems to be working correctly. If not, please let me know. Martin^msgj 22:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I've updated the example code in the class docs as well. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

More on the B-class checklist

I've put a new version on the B-class checklist in the sandbox. It has the following two possible advantages:

Gives warning of incorrect parameters. The following values are accepted:
- yes, y, 1 = criterion met
- no, n, 0 = criterion not met
- <yes/no>, yes/no, ? or (blank) = not checked
- Anything else = incorrect parameter warning
It will accept an input of "unused" from the project banner in which case it will not display anything for that criterion. This might allow projects which use 5-point checklists to use the standard code instead of an extra hook. (But I'm not sure how to change the prompt which appears when no parameters are entered ...)

See my sandbox for an example. What do people think about this? Martin^msgj 14:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

"NA" would be a better term than "not used". Happy‑melon 16:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe, but NA often means "not article" rather than "not applicable", so that's why I tried to avoid it! Martin^msgj 17:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Based on your idea I have implemented a "n/a" option so that if the reviewer of an article believes that a criterion is not relevant to an article, he/she can use "n/a" instead of "yes" and still award the B-class. (Of course this is only implemented on the default class mask and not on custom ones yet.) I still think an "unused" option might be useful when a project decides they won't use a particular criterion, and this would alleviate the need for the separate hook. But I think this needs some more thought to do properly. Martin^msgj 23:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That would allow the 5 item b-class checklist to merge into this, but it would need to have a way of having a specific item be "n/a" without having to enter it into every use. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 23:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course. The "unused" parameter, if implemented, would be passed by the project banner template, not the individual instances on talk pages. I think in this case it would be better if the unused criterion was hidden and not marked as "not applicable". Martin^msgj 23:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Custom messages for class/importance

A while ago the physics banner linked to the project's guidelines for importance ratings, but this is not possible under the metabanner. Could custom messages be shown instead (I'm sure other projects would like to link to their own A/B class guidelines too)?Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 20:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You can use the ASSESSMENT_LINK parameter to define what the "rated" link points to. Martin^msgj 22:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

"fix nested header alignment/linewrapping/general awfulness"

With the successful wind up of quite a long chain of changes, it is now possible for me to have a crack at resolving this issue that's been bugging me for a while. Please take a look at the nested examples below and tell me what you see:

{{WikiProjectBannerShell|category=no|1=
{{WikiProject Cutlery|class=FA|priority=low|category=no}}
{{WPBannerMeta/test|class=B|importance=Low|category=no}}
{{WPBannerMeta/test|class=C|importance=Low|category=no|Atari=yes}}
{{WPBannerMeta/test|class=Fa|importance=Low|category=no
  |Atari=yes|GOW=yes|C&C=yes|DAH=yes|GTA=yes|Warcraft=yes}}
{{WikiProject Discworld|category=no|class=GA}}
{{WikiProject Australia|category=no|class=GA|Brisbane=yes|Canberra=yes|Adelaide=yes|NSW=yes|places=yes}}
}}

The WikiProject Cutlery is an example of the current display when no quality assessment is given. The Discworld banner shows the current display with a class rating, and the Australia banner shows the appearance when a number of taskforces are included. The three Video Games banners demonstrate the new layout; I like to think it is an improvement, not least because the centrelines of each banner will align correctly when a number of them are present on a page, such as Talk:Mohammed. Thoughts? Happy‑melon 23:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It's nice that they're aligned, but I prefer the larger gap personally. Martin^msgj 23:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

We can make it as large or as small as desired - I've increased it a bit more. Happy‑melon 23:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I increased it a little bit more and like it. Martin^msgj 00:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

How about having the WP Name (and task forces aligned to the left) and then have the classes aligned to the right next to the show button (eg: Rated: C [Show]). Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page | Contribs)} 04:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll put some classes on the cells so you can inflict that on yourself if you want to... :D Happy‑melon 18:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Done finally. Happy‑melon 16:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Not quite. On Firefox 3, there is a slightly annoying thing where the project name and class move slightly when showing/hiding their nested forms. Martin^msgj 23:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thats from the [Show/Hide] changing, since they are different lengths it increases the width of the box so the center dynamically changes so it contents will also slightly change as well. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page | Contribs)} 00:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, this affects all show/hide buttons now (it was that or keep wasting a quarter of the width of the banner on each side with a fixed-width box); I don't think it's possible to prevent this except by putting "show/hide" into a monospace font, which is likely to make big waves... Happy‑melon 11:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Extension of B-checklist

At present, if a banner has B_CHECKLIST = yes set, it is impossible to assess an article as B-class without consciously filling in the checklist of B-class criteria. On the other hand, it is still possible to assess the article at A-class: this seems slightly illogical to me! Could we have a system where all the higher classes (GA, A, FA and perhaps FL as well) require such a conscious step for those projects which have chosen to implement the criteria function? Or, to ask the real question, would that screw things up too much for too many projects if I just propose it here?! Physchim62 (talk) 12:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting suggestion, but I think I don't agree. Obviously we would hope and expect GA-, A- and FA- class articles to meet B-class standards (although actually for the first case it is not clear whether it is the case). However each of these classes has its own review process (i.e. WP:GAN, Wikiproject A-class review, WP:FAC). Therefore it is unlikely that the B-class checklist would be of any use to someone assessing the article for one of these higher classes. And yes, it would screw things up for other projects as a lot of featured articles would be reclassified as start-class if we did this (not good!) Martin^msgj 13:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

That's what imagined – that it wasn't simple and non-controversial enough to be done simply by changing the meta-template! The coding change is pretty simple, but the political implications aren't… I shall raise the matter in more appropriate fora. Physchim62 (talk) 13:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Bus since there is an A-class hook, what if the parameter A-class=yes was required for an A-class Assessment. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 04:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

That would be nice for me, yes, so long as it doesn't screw up anyone else's assessment schemes. I think CHECK_B_FOR_A would be a better parameter name, just in case someone decides to implement an A-class checklist as well. Physchim62 (talk) 14:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

MilHist have an A-Class assessment checklist, I think. I know I copied someone's into the code for {{Comicsproj}}. Hiding T 13:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

(note: I am a coord at MILHIST) - MILHIST removes the B-class checklist when an article passes GA, A, FA or FL, as we feel that it is redundant (although there have been a few discussions about the value of GA and if a MILHIST B is higher or equal to it).
MILHIST does not have an A-class checklist for its template, but we do have WP:MH/A. Articles passing an A-class nomination must pass those 5 criteria. (FAQ page is here for the interested) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 22:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I copied it from someone's template, so maybe it is in India's, Australia's, Film's or Africa's. I think those are the ones I've ~~stolen~~ borrowed from. Hiding T 10:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Category parameter = "none"

I've been thinking about allowing the parameter "none" for various category parameters to specify that no category be used. For example, COMMENTS_CAT currently allows this but AUTO_ASSESS_CAT, ATTENTION_CAT, and INFOBOX_CAT do not. I suppose it is unlikely that some of these would want to be set to "none", but I think it would be helpful to do this for consistency.

There is some code in the sandbox (diff). Please tell me if this is a good idea and if this code will do the trick. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

We'll need to go deeper than that, or it will just produce output like [[Category:|{{PAGENAME}}]]. But I agree it's a good idea; it's been on the todo list for aaaages. Happy‑melon 12:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, most of these would have worked straight off. Only |AUTO_ASSES_CAT= requires any more groundwork, and that's now done. Happy‑melon 13:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Great.

Done. Seems to be working correctly. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Question: would it be possible/desirable to depreciate the IMPORTANCE_SCALE parameter and just check whether the importance parameter is passed? (In the same way that AUTO_ASSESS is no longer used.) Ditto for QUALITY_SCALE. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Questions

A few questions, if I may:

Is it possible to define custom text in place of "More information" when using |HOOK_COLLAPSED=?
I thought that the meta forced a C-Class assessment if the B-Class checklist was not completed, or is this not correct? Why is this not working at User talk:PC78/Sandbox1?
Regarding {{WikiProject Korea}}, will it be possible to delete the custom mask for quality classes once all transclusions are using the standard values?

Cheers! PC78 (talk) 18:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Answer to #1 is |COLLAPSED_HEAD= & answer to #2 is that the custom class at Template:WikiProject Korea/class does not have the code to handle the B-Class checklist included. See Template:WPBannerMeta/class for how to do it. -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. So presumably the answer to #3 would be no, because it will be needed to do #2. PC78 (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, as long as the "Good", "D", "E", "Cate" and "Tool" classes are being removed, you should be fine; you can go back to using the standard mask, which will include the C-Class force (assuming that's what you want, of course). Happy‑melon 19:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

How would I best add a tracking category for the forced assessments? By adding the same ifexpr at the end of the banner code? PC78 (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Another question, in the "task force" instructions, it says that TF TEXT 1 is required, but it was left out in the original instructions. If TF NAME 1 is used, why would TF TEXT 1 be required and left blank? Thanks for the help! --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not really required, it's just a cunning plot to confuse you :D Happy‑melon 19:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I thought so. Thanks again for the help!! --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

--Need some more help, refering to this paragraph, under "Other details": "Normal project banners, which are substituted rather than transcluded, usually show up in Category:WikiProject banners, allowing for a periodic cleanout. Banners using WPBannerMeta do not appear in this category when substituted, making it easier for them to get lost."

What is a "normal" project banner refering to?
If "it" gets lost, where do we find it??!!
Shouldn't the phrase be re-worded somehow to say "Do not substitute this template"? Or am I reading this incorrectly? It is a rather vague paragraph, would like some help from someone technically-minded to re-word it. Thanks very much! --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, in this context I think a "normal" banner is one which does not use {{WPBM}}. However WPBM-banners are rapidly becoming the norm! I suppose if it gets lost, you can't find it. Otherwise it wouldn't be lost :) I agree that this sentence is a bit confusing. I don't understand why substituted templates would normally appear in Category:WikiProject banners, because that category is generally enclosed in noinclude tags and so not included whether transcluded or substituted. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Waaay back in the very early versions of the documentation, it recommended to use a template {{subst check}}, which I created for the purpose, so that accidentally-substituted templates would be neatly categorised into a cleanup category to be periodically desubsted. It took me a full three months to realise that I was actually talking complete and utter crap and that the method didn't work at all, for the obvious reason that the noincluded template wouldn't get substituted. Essentially the sentence is pretty much useless, as MSGJ notes, lost banners are just that, lost. It would be possible to get a list of substed banners by taking the list of all pages transcluding WPBM, then removing all pages transcluding each banner that's known to use WPBM; but that's quite an operation given how many pages this is used on. Happy‑melon 14:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Tracking cats

A). On a related note, I did see the category show up about using comment parameters, so I looked at Category:WPBannerMeta tracking categories and noticed that:

These categories are (mostly) correctly populated: Category:WPBannerMeta templates using custom classes and Category:WPBannerMeta templates with missing assessment categories.
These categories are (still) not populating correctly: Category:WPBannerMeta templates using obscure class values, Category:WPBannerMeta banners using comment parameters and Category:WPBannerMeta banners using collapsed notes.
Would you be able to compare the differences in codes in the WPBM template that causes some tracking categories to work and others that don't? Thanks for your expert help! --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain why you think those categories are not populating correctly? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the difference is in the namespace. The categories that are populating correctly only have templates in them, hence the cat name "WPBM banners (templates) with/using etc.", where the 3 other categories are populating every namespace, including the articles, hence the reason for 6000+ in the cats. Hope this helps... --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The latter ones are true "tracking" categories: they are only supposed to exist for as long as it takes for us to resolve whichever issue they document. As such they deliberately cover all namespaces (hence the "banners" rather than "templates". If article pages are being tagged with WPBM banners, that is itself a Very Bad Thing and should be resolved ASAP. Happy‑melon 17:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarification, it's the "talk" pages that are populating the categories, not the article pages and one of those 3 categories in the not-populating-correctly group does use "templates" in their name, not just "banners" (eg: Category:WPBannerMeta templates using obscure class values), so your explanation does not follow. If the tracking categories are supposed to cover all namespaces, then due to the extreme size of them, (8000+ talk pages), how could you possibly use those tracking categories to narrow down which of the WikiProject BannerMeta "templates" is causing a problem, if any? Wouldn't it be easier to just populate those categories with the templates only? Because, in their present form, they are really of no use other than to take up space. --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Funandtrvl - these are hidden categories. If they are worrying you, you may switch of their display in your preferences ;) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem, just trying to help. --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Indeed, that's a mistake, but there's no point in renaming it given that it's only supposed to be temporary. The advantage of including all instances is that it means the categories are populated much faster; if a banner has 500 instances, then a page using that banner will appear in the category on average much faster than if only the template page would eventually appear (not least because the probability of one of those pages being edited, in which case it bypasses the job queue, is much higher). Once the template is fixed, of course, all its instances start to drain out of the category with equal speed. They do their job, which is the important thing. Happy‑melon 18:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Bug report

Random driveby but - I don't suppose the fiddling about above has caused Category:WPBannerMeta banners using comment parameters to be populated with thousands of pages that don't use comments and the stray "if" code seen on talk pages? Nanonic (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes it was one missing } I think. Reverted for now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Templates based on WPBannerMeta (e. g. Template:WikiProject Pharmacology) show a weird artefact below: {{#if:|}}. Could this be due to some bug in this template? Cheers --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, see above. Should be fixed now. Thanks for reporting it, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is still present. –Holt (T•C) 15:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be fixed. The templates just need purging. Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Right, thank you. I never thought of that. –Holt (T•C) 16:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Playing well with WikiProjectBannerShell?

Why doesn't this banner seem to play well with {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}? You can see what I mean at Talk:Mario Capecchi: the projects using WPBannerMeta display on one line, but the ones using this template are awkwardly formatted (off-center and on two lines). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

They all look exactly the same to me. What browser/OS are you using? §hep ^Talk 21:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The only issue I see on that page is that the project title for WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology is wrapped onto two lines (that's using IE7). PC78 (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

That might be your resolution??, I see one complete line (IE7, 1440x900). §hep ^Talk 21:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I see what he means. I'm using IE7 (1680x1050), and the Biography banner (non-WPBannerMeta) is noticeably shorter vertically, as well as centered differently from all the other banners (WPBannerMeta). DeFaultRyan (talk) 22:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps; my resolution is 1024x768. I don't see the issue with the Biography banner, but when I look at a page using {{WikiProjectBanners}} (Talk:Augusto Pinochet, for example) the meta and non-meta banners have a slightly different width. Is this a related issue? PC78 (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I see this issue in Safari 3.2.1 on Mac OS X 10.5.6, regardless of browser window width. I do not see the issue in Firefox 3.0.7, Flock 1.2.7, Camino 1.5.2, or Camino 1.6.6. So, the issue seems to be in IE7 and Safari. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I see the same thing without javascript. It's probably in the code in /core that displays the project name. Gimmetrow 02:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm just speculating here but in the header section there is <tr><td colspan="2" width="100%"></td>{{td}}</tr> before the main row and <tr>{{td}}{{td}}{{td}}</tr> afterwards which results in conflicting table column width declarations. Perhaps the <tr>{{td}}{{td}}{{td}}</tr> could be changed to <tr><td colspan="2" width="100%"></td>{{td}}</tr> -- WOSlinker (talk) 11:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Gosh that screenshot looks terrible! What browser did you say you are using? WhatamIdoing and Nihonjoe: is this the same issue that you were seeing? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Yikes, that is awful! Ditto the "what browser" question; also, how did you get that display without JavaScript? Or did you enable JS temporarily to take the screenshot? Happy‑melon 15:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Specific screenshot came from Safari, like Nihonjoe. Of course javascript was enabled for that. Gimmetrow 20:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly what I'm seeing in the browsers mentioned above (well, I only use Safari, not IE7, but same thing as far as appearance). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

My comments:

the projects using WPBannerMeta display on one line, but the ones using this template are awkwardly formatted - I don't understand this. Is there a "not" missing here somewhere? Otherwise what does "this template" refer to?
I can't see any awkward formatting on Talk:Mario Capecchi, on FF3 or IE7. Perhaps a screenshot would help here.
I can see the slight height difference when the banners are nested. I don't think there is no reason to expect them to be the same as there is no "standard size". Which height do you prefer?
I can see the slight width difference in IE7 when using WPB. But I think this issue is still being looked at (or needs to be) because there is no reason why the width of the banners should be so much less than the width of the shell anyway ...

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this is what I see on my screen:

As I say, for me there is only the wrapping on the Molecular and Cellular Biology banner. No big deal; it looks as if there is enough room for it not to wrap, though. PC78 (talk) 10:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, looking at my screenshot again I can see there is a very slight difference in the height of Medicine & United States (meta) and Biography & Italy (non-meta). PC78 (talk) 12:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The reason the MCB banner wraps is because there's an invisible div floating to the left, approximately the same size and shape as the hide/show button on the right, to keep the headers centred. So consider that a 'feature'; it's certainly not something we can get rid of. The WPBM header row is actually explicitly padded (0.3em worth) which is the cause of the extra height in WPBM banners; obviously this is completely adjustable if people prefer slightly more compact display in WikiProjectBannerShell. Happy‑melon 15:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I get something similarly ugly in Google Chrome:

Any chance someone who knows the template better could get the WPBannerMeta-using banner (the first one) to have a title aligned more like the bespoke one (second), please? :o) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 18:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, interesting. Now we have a specific browser I can start trying things. I see the difference in colour is due to a declaration in your monobook (I have something very similar myself); and the whitespace was just an extra linebreak in {{WikiProject Typography}}, now fixed. Happy‑melon 19:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised that's what you're getting in IE7. Here's what I get: , all nice and perfect. §hep ^Talk 18:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The other article talk listed above renders fine for me too. You're having severe problems though (banner discoloration, etc.) that might be your end? Have you tried purging the page/do other pages look normal? §hep ^Talk 18:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, it seems the main problem is with a set of browsers including Safari and GoogleChrome, whereby the cell widths in the header sub-table are completely screwed over by something. Unfortunately I'm off on holiday in about an hour's time, so unless the random attempt I made in /core/sandbox worked first time, I'm out of this one for a week. But of course, that's why we gave Martin the admin bit :D...

One thing that I'm sure would be hugely helpful: can someone who's got one of the affected browsers temporarily put

#bodyContent * {border: 1px solid red !important;}

into their monobook.css and take another screenshot? As you might guess, that gives everything a red border, which makes it easy to see what's going on. We need to know if the issue is with the way the width is distributed between the three columns of the table, or if the table is not actually filling the entire header cell. Good luck! Happy‑melon 21:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Wpbm redborders.png, I think that screenshot is showing the correct things, right? On the left is Firefox, on the right Safari (looked the same as Chrome for me) chan dler · 17:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I've just done some tests using Google Chrome & the following change will fix the issue. -- WOSlinker (talk) 09:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be an extra line space occuring now (Firefox). Shall I revert? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please do. Will have to have a look for some other option. -- WOSlinker (talk) 10:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

B-Class checklist icons

A matter of extreme triviality to be sure, but any thoughts on using File:Green check.svg in place of File:Orange check.svg in the checklist? It seems more logical to me in that green and red are typically associated with yes and no, and would be more consistant with the likes of {{Tick}}. Plus it creates a better aesthetic in the banner, IMHO. :) PC78 (talk) 18:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Changed it over. Looks nice! What do you think about the two new icons - for invalid parameter and not applicable? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! The tilde looks good; it would be nice to have an exclamation mark that was more visually consistant with the other icons, but I've had a look on Commons and there doesn't appear to be one. :( PC78 (talk) 23:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

No I couldn't find one either. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

We've got one now! :) PC78 (talk) 15:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

That's great. It's a little bit narrower than the others so the text doesn't align. I don't know if that matters though. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Try using File:Orange exclamation mark.svg in the banner. PC78 (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks very cool :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Text instead of images

I'd like to be able to use text instead of an image for things like |IMAGE_LEFT=. See for an example {{Gaijin tarento}}. Any chance this could be implemented? —Ms2ger (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Where using text instead of images would be even more useful would be for the notes and/or taskforces. -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. If something could be set up to create a small div instead of the image, with the text sized appropriately to fit. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Transcluding pages of images

I had an idea of transcluding a portal's image of the month directly onto the WikiProject Banner so that when the image changed every month in the portal, it would show this in the banner. However this does not seem possible but i was wondering how to make it possible. The one i was going to try it on was the selected image from Portal:London to Template:WPLondon. A copy of the image has been made at Portal:London/Showcase picture/pic. Simply south (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the only thing you need to do, is create something a variable that when transcluded only includes the file name. Either though making two pages like "Portal:London/Showcase picture/pic2" or modify the code in the current one

{{#ifeq:{{1}}|banner|<noinclude>}}[[Image:{{#ifeq:{{1}}|banner|</noinclude>}}HansomCab.jpg{{#ifeq:{{1}}|banner|<noinclude>}}|450px|center]]{{#ifeq:{{1}}|banner|</noinclude>}}

That code worked for me when I tried it, using {{Portal:London/Showcase picture/pic|banner}} in the IMG_LEFT (or what the exact name is) chan dler · 18:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Chandler's right. You need a page with just the name of the file. Then you can do this and it should all work fine. You might want to consider at least semiprotecting the page in question to prevent vandalism. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It occurs to me now that you might have meant the main banner image rather than the portal image. In which case, you can just tweak my code! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, i was meaning replacing the banner image with the portal image, but the other thing that has happened is fair as well. Simply south (talk) 20:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Would there be any concerns about having a templatepage version of the comments subtemplate? I think it would be helpful to see that on the templatepage. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea; but how do you suggest it should be designed? Happy‑melon 14:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the version in Template:WPBannerMeta/comments/sandbox should work. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Tried it, it doesn't work, because the call in /templatepage sets |category=no, and /istemplatepage therefore decides that it's not a templatepage (and has to do so, or genuine examples in template documentation would break). Happy‑melon 16:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Puzzled. Why is it any different to the many other templatepage versions of things that we have? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It's because the /comments stuff is part of the core banner, but isn't called by an explicit parameter. For things like taskforces or notes, we do some clever stuff on /templatepage to see if the parameter is defined, and always set it to yes in that one demo; there's nothing in /taskforce that checks for is-templatepage-ness. Happy‑melon 17:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, I like you moving the |COMMENTS_CAT= default out into the mask where it belongs; but I've reverted your change from |COMMENTS_CAT= to |COMMENT_CAT=. While that's something that's bugged me for a while, I think the way to resolve it is to change the external syntax to the plural form. Otherwise we still have the external inconsistency of the main parameter |COMMENTS= being plural, but the others being singular. Happy‑melon 14:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Just posted on your talkpage about this. I care little about semantics, but I do care that it took me half an hour to debug some code on templatepage due to the slightly different parameter name on different templates :) Whatever it is called, it should be the same on all, IMHO. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Done transition complete. Happy‑melon 20:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Please pass parameters FQS and B_CHECKLIST on to custom overrides of WPBannerMeta/class

{{editprotected}} {{WPBannerMeta}} passes the FQS parameters and B_CHECKLIST parameters to {{WPBannerMeta/class}}, but at the top of WPBannerMeta/class, when it checks for a custom class override, it doesn't pass those parameters on to the {{{BANNER_NAME}}}/class template, as opposed to the class and b1 through b6 parameters which are passed through.

Please pass those parameters through to the customized class template so they can utilize them. DeFaultRyan (talk) 16:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

They are not needed because a custom class mask is only relevant to one banner and so the values of those two parameters are known and the mask can be designed with them in mind. Is there a particular banner you'd like help with? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the prompt reply, so I don't want to take an obnoxious tone here, but why would you tell me what is or isn't needed in my template? And if I've overlooked some feature of this template that makes this request moot, I apologize for wasting your time. That being said, it would be useful to have those parameters so I can make the class mask more robust in the face of changing the banner template, and other class masks are free to ignore the parameters like they always have. The banner in question is {{WikiProject College football}}, and I've put the class mask in {{WikiProject College football/class}}. The main reason for the existence of this class is to support more extended assessment classes (future, current, needed, etc). The rest of the behavior works just fine for me, so I'd like to have access to the FQS and B_CHECKLIST parameters so I don't have to rewrite the class mask if/when we modify the parent banner to use the B-Class checklist option. If those parameters are passed through, I can leave the default behavior in place and it will work as-is when we enable the checklist. Even better would be a way to enable those extended classes as an option in {{WPBannerMeta}} directly, in order to leave in the rest of the default behavior (such as the notices that show up when an assessment category is missing) and completely eliminating the need for my custom mask in the first place. I'd imagine that there are other projects that would like to support these assessment extra assessment classes, but don't need any other type of custom class mask functionality. Perhaps something like QUALITY_FUTURE=yes, or similar... DeFaultRyan (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Firstly you don't need to use editprotected to get our attention. I've deactivated it again. The FQS parameter only picks between two sets of predefined classes, neither of which includes the exotic ones like Future and Needed. So it's completely irrelevant if you are using a custom mask. About the B-checklist, either your project is using it or it isn't - it's not something which will be changing often. After replying to you yesterday I edited Template:WikiProject College football/class and fixed it for you. As you are not using the checklist now I removed the code for it. If you ever decide to implement it in the future it will be simple enough to add the code later. Hope this helps, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with DeFaultRyan in that these parameters should be passed to the custom class template. IMO there should be absolutely no reason for a project to have to re-edit a custom class template should they decide to enable/disable B_CHECKLIST or FULL_QUALITY_SCALE. As it stands currently, these two parameters do not function as documented when a custom class template is used since they can only change values in the default class template. If another editor ended up taking on one of these projects and tried to change these settings, not getting the intended result would most likely confuse them. To me, as a programmer, I consider this to be a bug/design oversight, albeit easy to correct. Going over the code, I was also wondering why we even passed FQS to the default class template instead of FULL_QUALITY_SCALE, as it seems to me it would clarify the code if we just used the full parameter name vs reassigning it to a shorter name. For the record, an edit to this class template is what brought me to this talk page. (Yes, I'm aware of the cosmetic bug this edit [2] introduced, and I'm not too worried about it atm since constantly editing these files just forces needless rebuilds and extra server load.) Tothwolf (talk) 22:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the editprotected thing: I'll keep that in mind. Tothwolf basically summed up my opinion. First step over at WP:CFB was to standardize the banner. I'm considering introducing the B-checklist in the near future, but that means I'll have to update my class template again. Not really a big deal, but like Tothwolf said, it could trip up a newer editor, just like it tripped me up. And it causes the banner not to behave in a non-intuitive fashion (copy/pasting the default class template breaks FULL_QUALITY_SCALE). But if you guys really feel strongly about it, then I'll drop it. Anyway, thanks for helping edit my class template, and thanks for discussing this issue with me. What about that other idea of mine? The possibility of leaving the default class template in place, and enabling the other assessment categories on a parameter-by-parameter basis? The only reason I'm using the custom class template is to utilize the non-standard quality classes - in every other way, the default behavior is what I want. Is it feasible to "turn on" the extended classes by means of a template parameter? DeFaultRyan (talk) 23:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

"copy/pasting the default class template breaks..." is the desired behavior: it stops people doing precisely that when there is no need to do so; this would result in a banner unnecessarily using a custom mask, and hence not being able to take advantage of improvements to the default mask. Custom masks should and must be designed somewhat differently to WPBM's default mask, as individual banner masks do not need to be able to adapt to multiple possible configurations of the overlying banner template, as MSGJ noted.

The whole point of the class mask system (which is computationally significantly more expensive than a parameter system) was to allow projects to have complete and easy control over which classes they wanted to allow. The parameter alternative would require the banner to have code for every possible class requested by every project using the banner, with an open-ended list of parameters to enable and disable them. This would be detrimental to the vast majority of projects who do not use these nonstandard classes. Happy‑melon 23:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your response, or the other way around, but I wholeheartedly agree with keeping the class mask system in place. In fact, I agree with nearly everything you said. I think the class mask system is valuable for complete and flexible control. I think that individual masks should be a bit different from the default. That's where the seeming contradiction enters my mind. WP:CFB isn't using any completely different classes, like B-plus, or what have you. So there's probably not a need for our custom class mask to be very different from the default. However, the desire to use the "quasi-standard" classes of Future, Current, and Needed, neccessitated a custom class mask that was a copy/paste from the default, because that was the only way to enable those classes in our banner. My request for a parameter system wasn't for the set of all possible classes that could arise in any project (I agree, that's untenable). It was for a parameter to enable the "quasi-standard" classes of Future, Current, and Needed (and possibly Merge), in much the same way as FULL_QUALITY_SCALE=yes enables Category, Template, etc without the need for a custom class mask. {{WPBannerMeta/class}} even says "Please do not just copy the contents of this subpage to create a custom mask. If the banner does not need to have a significantly different handling of the |class= inputs, then leave the default mask in place.", but that's precisely what I was forced to do in order to enable Future, Current, and Needed with otherwise default behavior. My question to is, does merely using the Current, Future, Needed, and/or Merge classes need to constitute a significantly different handling of the |class= inputs? I don't believe the answer is "yes", because the only difference in handling is adding 3 lines: "|needed = Needed, |current = Current, |future = Future". If the answer is "no", then shouldn't there be an alternative way of utilizing these categories without incurring the overhead and risk of a custom class mask, i.e., a parameter to enable them similar to FULL_QUALITY_SCALE. I'd just as soon use something like that and delete our custom mask altogether. I suspect other projects that deal with annual events might also want to utilize Current and Future class without creating a custom class mask. DeFaultRyan (talk) 00:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The "Future", "Current", etc, classes are now considered no different to any of the other wierd and wonderful custom classes we have available. There isn't a particular distinction between these and wierd things like {{AfD-class}}. So the "quasi-standard" grouping that you describe doesn't really exist. Happy‑melon 11:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the assumption that a custom class template does not need to be able to adapt to multiple configurations. It should still be possible to design a custom class template that will properly handle both the FULL_QUALITY_SCALE and B_CHECKLIST parameters that are passed to {{WPBannerMeta}}. Not passing these parameters to the custom class template imposes an artificial limitation on what can be done within the template and this is always something that should be avoided in modular programming.
While I can understand wanting to discourage people from using a custom class template when it isn't really needed, I wanted to make use of some of the newer class types that are not present in the default class template. In particular, I intend to make extremely heavy use of the Needed and Merge classes as I'm sorting out and overhauling an entire hierarchy of categories and articles with tons of redirects.
"(which is computationally significantly more expensive than a parameter system)"
Are you certain? In most programming languages, switch statements are much more efficient than cascaded or sequential if statements.
I'd like to propose a compromise. Why not pass B_CHECKLIST and FULL_QUALITY_SCALE to the custom class templates and have the default class template continue to use FQS and possibly something like BCHKLST (instead of B_CHECKLIST). This would prevent anyone from doing a simple copy/paste of the default class template as a custom template and still allow those of us who wish to make use of B_CHECKLIST and FULL_QUALITY_SCALE in custom class templates to do so. Passing the real parameter names to the custom class template makes the most sense anyway as it makes it clear that these are the same parameters that are used for {{WPBannerMeta}} itself.
--Tothwolf (talk) 01:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Now this is an interesting idea, which may well be workable. I'll have a think, but I can't see any immediate reason why this wouldn't work.

The mask system uses an #ifexist: statement to check whether the custom mask exists or not, which is three orders of magnitude heavier on the servers than either #switch: or #if:/#ifeq:. So while you're right about nested ifs vs switches, the #ifexist: blows that completely out of the window. Fortunately, we don't need to worry about load on the servers, only on how our code affects the end-user. Just FYI :D. Happy‑melon 11:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I forgot about the #ifexist: in the parent code. Still, even with WP:PERF there's no point in using an expensive parser function if its not needed.
Is there a reason #ifexist: was used instead of passing a parameter to {{WPBannerMeta}} pointing to the custom class template? If done as a parameter, it would be possible to keep different flavours of class templates with {{WPBannerMeta}} itself. Perhaps something like CUSTOM_CLASS_MASK = full_path/to/template? Tothwolf (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

That would be rather bizzarre centralisation: the whole point of the mask system is to move control over which classes are supported to the invidual banners, away from the core code that has to be shared with every project. There is no need to require the banner coder to specify in a parameter what can be determined automagically. The point of WP:PERF is to say "ignore the performance impact at our end, do whatever is best for the reader/user and we'll pick up the pieces as far as possible". Happy‑melon 18:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The other thing that comes to mind is won't #ifexist: return true even for an empty or redirected file? If the class template is blanked or moved (leaving a redirect) in an attempt to remove it, the parent code will still try to use it and not the default class template. Tothwolf (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with a redirect; that could be just moving the mask to a more convenient location. Difficult to check if a custom mask is blank, but the other reason to 'outsource' the masks is to say "you use a mask, it's your problem if things go wrong". Obviously if people come here saying "my banner's broken" we can check and quickly see what the problem is, and fix it; but trying to build exception handling into wikitext is a fundamentally Bad Idea: it's a markup, not a programming language. Happy‑melon 18:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm wondering if it might be better to have the custom mask template specified as a parameter to {{WPBannerMeta}} because it would allow someone without the admin bit to remove the custom mask template from their project banner. With the current #ifexist: check it isn't possible for a non-admin to effectively remove the custom mask template from a project banner because even if they blank the custom class template or move it elsewhere the parent code is still going to try to use it. Just something to think about anyway I guess... Tothwolf (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

That's what {{db-g6}} is for :D I do see your point, but I think it's a fairly minor issue. Happy‑melon 20:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Not everyone knows about the speedy delete templates or how to use them though. It is a minor issue, but still something that could be confusing for people who haven't looked at the code used by {{WPBannerMeta}}. Maybe this is something that could go on the to do list for the next update? Tothwolf (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

If you mean a more rigorous check for if the custom mask 'exists', that can be done. My personal reaction to the parameter suggestion is

Won't fix. Of course this isn't bugzilla; there may be consensus to the contrary, but I don't think such a move is a Good Idea. Happy‑melon 20:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I've made a modification such that empty (blanked) custom masks will now be ignored. Happy‑melon 21:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Good deal, that should help prevent some confusion. I still think it may be better as a long term solution to have the custom template location passed as a parameter to {{WPBannerMeta}} but I'm well aware that this would be a multi-step change that would involve modifying any project templates that use a custom class template so it wouldn't be a simple thing to implement. For that fact, it would also allow a project to use different custom class templates for different sub-project banners via a subtemplate, but there probably aren't too many projects that currently do that. Tothwolf (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Done: parameters |FULL_QUALITY_SCALE= and |B_CHECKLIST= are now available to custom masks; copying WPBM's own mask will still break. Happy‑melon 18:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Random useful fact

Now that Special:MostLinkedTemplates has been out of action for so long, we've had no way to know just how many pages this was being used on. I've just run a database query on the toolserver's replicated copy of the templatelinks table; it took eleven minutes to run, and returned, wait for it, 1,709,150 pages. There have probably been some other changes at the top, but I don't think there's any doubt that we're now working on a top-ten, probably top-five, template. Keep up the good work! Happy‑melon 12:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You disappoint me! I was expecting a comment along the lines of encouraging projects to use the following code:

|note 1    = {{{RUF|}}}
 |NOTE_1_TEXT        = This article contains a random useful fact.
 |NOTE_1_IMAGE       = Ideolengua proyecto.svg   
  |NOTE_1_SIZE       = 25px
 |NOTE_1_CAT         = Foobar articles with random useful facts
 |NOTE_1_FORMAT      =

Physchim62 (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

New page on: "Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page:"

Just wondering if this is supposed to happen, when adding {{WikiProject United States|class=Category|importance=NA}} to a few cat talk pages today, a new red-linked page at the bottom of the transclusion list shows up, only if one adds the "importance" parameter, along with the "class" parameter; it doesn't show up with just the "class" parameter. This only displays in the "edit" mode. For an example, see: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:Former_United_States_Executive_Cabinet_positions&action=edit Template:WikiProject United States/class] and look at the bottom of the opened "edit" page. Just wondering! --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmn, this is interesting. This is a result of my recent change to how the template looks for custom masks (see above). I changed from using the {{#ifexist:...}} parser function to using {{PAGESIZE:...}}, which returns zero if the page is either blank or doesn't exist. Both do a database lookup, and so both add a link to one of the links tables to ensure cache integrity etc. This is why if I put the code {{#ifexist:Foo}} on this page, then this page shows up in Special:WhatLinksHere/Foo. It seems that the PAGESIZE: function adds tracker links to the templatelinks table rather than the pagelinks table (which is used to create WhatLinksHere); presumably this is because when the target page is edited, its size will change, so all pages querying that value will need to be updated, in much the same way as pages transcluding the target need to be updated. Nonetheless, it's a MediaWiki bug that the page is listed as a "template transcluded onto this page" when in fact it is nothing of the sort. I'll file it as a bug, but I suspect it will be a Big Thing To Fix, might even require a schema change, so don't hold your breath. Happy‑melon 22:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Filed, T20188. Happy‑melon 23:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh-oh, see what you did and look what I started!! :) Thanks --Funandtrvl (talk) 00:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think I'm the guilty party here ;) Tothwolf (talk) 00:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

A-ha, so you're the troublemaker!! :) --Funandtrvl (talk) 01:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Error

Template:WPAVIATION/sandbox is giving an error, " Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character "," ". It's not showing on other meta banners, which makes me think it may have something to do with the recent changes to incorporate a 5 part checklist. Any ideas? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 05:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That was an error on the templatepage which is now fixed. Apologies on behalf of happy-melon. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, apologies... not sure how I managed to fix that error in the main code but not in the /templatepage... Happy‑melon 10:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

WP templates are now showing up in Category:Unassessed <project> articles

Noticed today that various "main pages" of WPM templates are showing up in the Unassessed class categories, see: Template:WikiProject Philadelphia. It shows up in: Category:Unassessed Pennsylvania articles. Also happening at What's up? --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed was just on that template and others using one particular hook, but I corrected that. Thanks for pointing that out! Happy‑melon 21:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again! --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Bottom importance

{{editprotected}}

Some projects are using a "bottom" option for importance (see Template:Bottom-importance and Category:Bottom-importance articles). This template does not seem to support it at the moment (see the WPRocketry template on Talk:Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex 1). Would it be possible to enable support for it. Thanks. --G W… 08:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see /Archive 3#Bottom-importance. —Ms2ger (talk) 08:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

There is actually a greater use of {{No-importance}}, though I suppose that would be handled by the meta in the same way? PC78 (talk) 11:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it from the archived page linked to above, the main opposition to the introduction of these features is complexity. I've just created a custom version of this template for WPRocketry to support these parameters. The difference is two lines of code to allow both options:

  |no   = No
  |bottom = Bottom

Inserted between the fourth and fifth lines of Template:WPBannerMeta/importance. Am I missing something? --G W… 13:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

That most projects don't want to use No- and/or Bottom-importance. —Ms2ger (talk) 15:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

However some do, and providing the means for these projects to use this template should not affect those that do not. The fact that a feature is enabled doesn't mean it has to be used. Some projects don't have rating, but the template still provides a means to rate articles. --G W… 15:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If a project does not use bottom-importance then it would not usually be desirable for the template to accept such a rating, as it would be classifying articles into non-existent importance classes and categorising into non-existent categories. I agree that this issue is something which needs to be thought about though. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that by adding the functionality in the manner you suggest, we unavoidably add it for all projects using WPBM. This means that setting |importance=bottom on any banner will mark it as "Bottom-importance", whether the necessary infrastructure (categories, assessments, project support) exists or not. This is unlike custom quality classes where the class is added only for that project, and is not 'forced' upon all projects. Happy‑melon 18:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Taskforce hook parameter capitalization bug

Currently, for task forces to be enabled that are coded by the hook (Template:WPBannerMeta/hooks/taskforces), the parameter on talk pages needs to be set to "yes" in lowercase. Using "Yes" as a value will not work. However, task forces coded by WPBannerMeta directly can be set to any capitalization of yes. To fix this, the lc function should be used in Template:WPBannerMeta/hooks/taskforces. "{{#ifeq:{{{tf 1|}}}|yes|" should be changed to "{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{tf 1|}}}}}|yes|" for each of the 10 tf variables. Thanks. --Scott Alter 13:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, good idea. I think perhaps we could move the parameter checking to the Template:WPBannerMeta/taskforce code to avoid repeating it many times. We should also accept "y" as well as "yes". — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Scratch that. The 5 main taskforces will accept any non-blank parameter (even "no"), so it would seem to make sense to adjust the hook to mimic this behaviour. It might seem illogical to accept "no" but this is the probably simplest and consistent with other parameters. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I've created {{yesno}} as a generic normaliser for this sort of thing and implemented it pretty much universally across WPBM and hooks; it's a bit funny with having to handle the tildes differently in different situations, but it should improve consistency in this area. Happy‑melon 18:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Scott Alter 23:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Assessment link

Following a discussion on Template talk:WPMED, would there be any opposition to adjusting the links to the quality and importance scales in the banner. The proposal is as follows:

If ASSESSMENT_LINK is specified then the word "rated" will not be linked, but "quality scale" and "importance scale" link to "ASSESSMENT_LINK#quality scale" and "ASSESSMENT_LINK#importance scale," respectively.

The idea is that if a project has its own scales then the generic WP1.0 scale is not necessary or relevant.

There is also a suggestion that if ASSESSMENT_LINK is specified the word "project" is inserted into the wording as follows.

This article has been rated as XX-Class on the project's quality scale.
This article has been rated as YY-importance on the project's importance scale.

Any comments? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Some banners already use ASSESSMENT_LINK because their assessment page is not in the "standard location" as expected by the banner. If you want to change the purpose of ASSESSMENT_LINK then you should change those banners first by adding redirects on those projects so that they don't need to use ASSESSMENT_LINK.

An alternative suggestion would be to have a new parameter, ASSESSMENT_SCALE which would then control the "quality scale" and "importance scale" links and add the word "project's". You could also add a feature to ASSESSMENT_LINK so that ASSESSMENT_LINK=none would stop rated being linked. -- WOSlinker (talk) 08:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't intending to change the purpose of the parameter and I don't see the need for a new parameter. Isn't the page that ASSESSMENT_LINK points to precisely the place where the scales should be? There seems to be some agreement that one link on each line is sufficient. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

So, do you mean that rated shouldn't be linked to at all and the link at the end should go the projects assessment page? -- WOSlinker (talk) 13:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. Because the quality scale should be on that page, otherwise how can you assess an article? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a good change. If the projects have their own assessment page there's no need to link to the 1.0 scale. §hep ^Talk 22:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I understand the problem here. On {{WPMeasure}}, the word "rated" already links to our quality or importance scales (ie, how the article has been rated), while the words at the end of the line link to the WP1.0 scales (ie, how the article is supposed to compare with other articles on other subjects). That seems like a reasonable compromise to me. Am I missing something? Physchim62 (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Because people don't click on "rated" when they want to find WP:MED's quality or importance scales; they click on "quality scale" or "importance scale". If linking to both is important, then I believe we have these exactly backwards. The "rated" link could go to a general explanation about why anything is being assessed at all -- but if you're trying to figure out why the article nearest to your heart got a "Low-importance" rating from WPMED, it would be more helpful to take the reader to the relevant scale. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I now have a concrete proposal for the change to the wording. The code is here and there are some examples in /Assessment examples. Please have a look and tell me what you think. The basic changes are:

Just one link in the sentence.
If the assessment link is specified the link points here (with #Quality_Scale) appended.
If not, then the default 1.0 scale is linked.
If the assessment link is specified, "project's" is added to the sentence to make it clear that it's the project's scale.

I haven't done the importance scale yet, but a similar idea would work I think. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

No one has commented yet, so I'm planning to assume that everyone is perfectly happy with it and implement in the next couple of hours! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll add a comment. When the article does not require rating, why bother with a link to the quality scale. Why not just have "This page is not an article and does not require a rating." ? -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the quality scale explains the non-article grades somewhat. Just as it provides info on the standard quality scale, it also provides info on NA, Cat, Template, and other classes. DeFaultRyan (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Okay, I guess it makes sense. But most of the quality scales (random example: Wikipedia:WikiProject Measurement/Assessment#Quality scale) include a description of these non-articles as well. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I have now implemented this on both the quality and importance scales, and would appreciate any feedback. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Would it not be better to allow a project to specify the anchor as part of the link given to the parameter? Not all projects use the same section headings (and anchors) on their /Assessment pages. Tothwolf (talk) 22:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, well, that would require two more parameters and be a much bigger job! But do you know any projects which use non-standard anchors, because I don't think I have come across any. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I had a look at the code just before you replied and it would not be a simple task to implement. I was initially only thinking of the Importance parameter as that was the one in the sandbox example. I remember coming across a number of projects with nonstandard section headings, but I honestly don't remember which ones they were. I looked over dozens of project assessment pages before I decided on a layout for the WP:WPIRC /Assessment subpage. Maybe it would be better to work up a standard /Assessment subpage that used standard headings that projects could modify for their own needs? I never could find one myself. Tothwolf (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it's too much to hope or expect that a project uses the anchor "Quality scale" for its quality scale and "Importance scale" for its importance scale. (Note that the term "Priority scale" is supported, as some projects use that instead of importance.) If it turns out that there are a significant number of projects who use a different anchor and who are averse to changing it, then we can think about it again. But I don't anticipate this being a problem. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd think as long as such limitations are clearly documented it wouldn't be a big deal. It may turn out to be something that someone else will eventually want to improve, in which case documenting the current limitation helps there as well. I've only come across a handful of projects using the priorityscale hook so far, but I guess its there mainly for projects that had a historical preference for "priority scale" and priority= in their original banners anyway? Tothwolf (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Well we haven't had any complaints about the change yet :) But one thing that is worrying me is that some projects (e.g. Template:Business) have an assessment subpage, but no quality scale. Therefore the link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Business/Assessment is a bit pointless. At the moment we are linking to the /Assessment subpage by default if it exists. Maybe this is something we need to reconsider. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Am I missing something on {{WikiProject Business}}? It looks like the links are going to the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team pages. Tothwolf (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you are missing something. Because {{WikiProject Business}} links to Wikipedia:WikiProject Business/Assessment. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It didn't when I left the comment above, but it certainly did when I checked it again later. I guess the server just still had an old version in cache. Tothwolf (talk) 19:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

Regarding the above, I make the following suggestion:

Instead of ASSESSMENT_LINK defaulting to {{{PROJECT_LINK}}}/Assessment if that page exists, the parameter should be explicitly specified if there is an assessment page which the project intends to use.

Rationale: it seems that a significant number of projects have assessment pages with little useful content on them (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Business/Assessment mentioned above). At the moment there is no way to stop the banner from linking to these pointless pages. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Are there any comments about this? If we proceed then I will set up a tracking category to find banners which may be affected by this, i.e.

there is an existing assessment subpage; and
the ASSESSMENT_LINK parameter is undefined.

Then these banners can be reviewed, and the assessment link specified if appropriate. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Can the tracking category be put into Template:WPBannerMeta/templatepage rather than Template:WPBannerMeta this time though? -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

~~That's what I was thinking. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)~~ Actually I'm not sure, because it won't be possible to know whether or not ASSESSMENT_LINK has been defined from templatepage. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Why not? No reason why it shouldn't AFAIK... Happy‑melon 19:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Because if {{{PROJECT_LINK}}}/Assessment exists then Template:WPBannerMeta will set {{{ASSESSMENT_LINK}}} to that if it is undefined, so there would be no way to know if {{{ASSESSMENT_LINK}}} was actually specified or not. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Gah! Well spotted, I would have walked right into that one. Yes, on WPBM itself it is, then. Happy‑melon 20:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Or ... make the change, then add the tracking cat on templatepage, and fix the banners within a couple of weeks. No one will notice the difference :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Implementation

Well I am back from holiday, and as there have been no further comments on this I will start to implement in the next day or two. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I have updated the main template to pass an unaltered ASSESSMENT_LINK parameter to the template. There are warnings that will display on the templatepage in the following cases:

Banners that have an ASSESSMENT_LINK parameter which points to a non-existent page. These will appear under the heading N on Category:WikiProject banners with assessment link issues and need to be fixed - probably the parameter just needs removing.
Banners that do not specify the ASSESSMENT_LINK parameter, but have an assessment subpage which might contain a quality scale. These appear under the heading U on Category:WikiProject banners with assessment link issues. If the assessment subpage does contain a quality scale then the ASSESSMENT_LINK parameter should be added to the banner to point to this page.

Any help fixing up these would be appeciated. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this is going to require a little more thought. As I write there are nearly 500 templates in that category so it would take much longer than I anticipated to fix them all up. Furthermore, 95% of them seem to have a decent quality scale in the assessment page, so I was affecting a majority of them needlessly just because of a few problem cases. I have reverted for now. What I'm thinking is allowing a parameter ASSESSMENT_LINK = none which will override the default in the few cases where there is a useless assessment page existing. Comments welcome. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I have found the best solution, I believe. Banners will continue to use an /Assessment page by default but will display a warning on the templatepage when doing so. An option of setting ASSESSMENT_LINK=no will override this. Please let me know if there are any problems with this. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

-Class

Can someone please check the code in the meta? {{-Class}} now has a default link to Category:Unassessed-Class articles, but for some reason meta banners are creating a red link to Category:-Class articles. Cheers! PC78 (talk) 12:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

(hiveminded with the above) Project banners using the meta template leave unhelpful redlinks when |class= is omitted or undefined. Expecting an A/B/C/Start/Stub type designation, where the argument "A" would yield the link "Category:A-Class Project articles", it links to "Category:-Class Project articles" See this version of Talk:Veganarchism for an example, where the link is Category:-Class Philosophy articles. This does not help the passing editor; what might help is a link to guidelines on how to assess an article, or something like WP:COUNCIL/AFAQ. Skomorokh 12:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

This is due to this change: previously the ??? wasn't linked at all. I'll dig. Happy‑melon 15:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The bug appears to be in {{WPBannerMeta/qualityscale}}, where {{{class}}} should be replaced by {{{class|Unassessed}}}. Physchim62 (talk) 15:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I imagine the problem lies with {{WPBannerMeta/qualityscale}} as the meta does not have the same problem with {{-importance}}. PC78 (talk) 15:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, prompted me to polish off and implement the shiny new {{class}} template. Needs reworking to fix Future-Class, Current-Class, etc etc, but it works for most, and keeps WPBM nice and clean. Happy‑melon 16:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Yikes, that brings its own set of problems. First, we need to lose the icons, second there is the issue you mention above with the non-standard classes, plus it's mucking up SL-Class in {{WikiProject Plants}}. PC78 (talk) 16:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Ironed out the issues with nonstandard classes and SL-Class. Only the icons to think about. Personally I rather like them; I've always thought it rather wierd that we only show icons for a handful of classes. What do other people think? Happy‑melon 16:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I find them rather gratuitous myself. They're OK for FA/FL/GA (A is pushing it a bit) because the icon ties the class to the process, but beyond that they're unnecessary, especially for the non-standard classes. 2¢. PC78 (talk) 16:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for sorting that, H-m, your speedy attention is helpful as always. Skomorokh 16:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I've added some code at {{class/sandbox}} which will force the icons for FA/FL/A/GA with the ability to remove them using |image=no. PC78 (talk) 16:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

And I've implemented it, along with using {{classcol}} (useful template that, well done creating it!). I'd still like to hear some more opinions before deciding which |image= option to use. Happy‑melon 17:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to keep the previous default of only having images for FA/FL/GA/A. —Ms2ger (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Got a vote for the new icons over on my talk page. Seems there's mixed opinion. Happy‑melon 19:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

How feasibile would it be to have a parameter in the meta to turn the icons on or off? PC78 (talk) 19:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Easily feasible, but utterly pointless. If we can't agree I'll just wrap the icons in some classes so people can hide or show them with CSS to suit, like we did with the vde links... I bet you don't even remember that they're still there, do you? :D Happy‑melon 19:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

vde links? I was thinking a parameter would allow the decision to be made at project level. PC78 (talk) 19:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Told you :D. Too much turkey and mince pies. This is just such a pointless thing for a project to have to think about: why should one project choose one way and another project the other? fundamentally it's an individual editor preference, not a project preference. You can actually hide the images now with CSS if you don't like them:

.wpb .assess img    {display: none;}
.wpb .assess-fa img,
.wpb .assess-fl img,
.wpb .assess-a  img,
.wpb .assess-ga img {display: inline;}

Will hide all the icons, then show the FA/FL/A/GA ones. Which gives you complete personal control over which icons to hide and which to show (you don't like the A-Class one, don't have it!) Of course if you only include the first line, you can be rid of the icons completely. Personal choice, which I'm a big fan of. Happy‑melon 21:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

December? You can't expect me to remember that far back, surely? :) As for the other, I'm all for making this a CSS thing and leaving it to individual choice (I'm not one for mucking about with that sort of thing myself), but it still leave the question of what becomes the default. PC78 (talk) 21:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

A vote against the extra icons on my talk page. If we really want to gauge opinion on this, it strikes me that this talk page may not be the best venue. Perhaps the village pump would be better? PC78 (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I concur: although I think the discussion should stay here, it would be helpful to poke a few pumps. I'll go do that. Happy‑melon 09:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm voting for removing all but FA/FL/GA/A icons as well. They are unnecessary, a bit distracting, and some of the icons are not great anyway. As there have been several voices of dissent now, we should probably revert back to this state while the discussion continues. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right.

Done, with a bit of unwanted tag nesting, but still reasonably cleanly. You can now show or hide the images to your heart's content with

.wpb .assess * { display: inline; } /* show all */
.wpb .assess-b * { display: inline; } /*show B-Class*/

Hopefully this will make everyone happy. Happy‑melon 14:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I support the decision to hide B-class and lower icons, but wonder why I'm not seeing GA icons (as, for example, at Choral symphony, which I've never viewed before [so no cache issue?]), while I do see FA icons (as at Florida Atlantic University). (Firefox 3, MacOs X, if that makes any difference.)

Also, I note that editors who want to automatically see the class of an article they're viewing can also select the gadget "Display an assessment of an article's quality as part of the page header for each article". That places some text, such as "A B-class article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" immediately under the name of an article.-- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmn, they display for me, both logged-in and logged-out, on FF3 and IE7. Are you looking in the right place? These are the icons that display inside WikiProject banners, in the (in this case green) box to the left of the "this article has been rated as GA-Class" notice. Happy‑melon 20:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Me too. Me thinks that John might be thinking about the featured article star which appears on the article itself. I don't think there has ever been an equivalent for good articles. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed; there have been occasional attempts to introduce a parallel GA icon in that location, but none have ever gained consensus. Happy‑melon 10:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, my misunderstanding. Thanks for the clarification. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

yesno

What is the reason that all the parameters use {{yesno}}? Especially the NOTE parameters. For example, in our project, we are trying to have our old peer review link to a custom page, usually because the paged was reviewed and then moved. We tried to put old-peer-review=page, in an attempt to use the parameter as the link, but come to find out, {{yesno}} just translates that to no. So what is {{yesno}} needed for? MrKIA11 (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

{{yesno}} is used to 'normalise' the value of 'trigger parameters' so they behave more as you would intuitively expect. For instance, editors might expect to be able to trigger a note with |foo=yes, but also with |foo=YES or perhaps |foo=1. On the other hand, you would intuitively expect |foo=no to not trigger the note. The yesno template makes these responses consistent across all the trigger parameters, and provides one central location where we can define and control these responses.

In response to your actual issue, I've added a new parameter, |title=, to the peerreview hook that you can use to specify the old title, I think this should work the way you want. Let me know if it doesn't. Happy‑melon 11:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It works, but I was hoping to not have another parameter. If {{yesno}} wasn't used, then it could just check if old-peer-review is defined, and if it ≠ yes, then it would assume it was the location of the peer review. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

But then if someone from WikiProject Tulips comes along and tags an article, and innocently thinks "no this article hasn't had a peer review, better set |peer-review=no", then he's quite rightly surprised when he gets the same result as setting |peer-review=yes.

It's possible to use a layer of logic on your WikiProject banner (which one is it, BTW?) to be able to use only one parameter for the 'end user', and split them into two to be passed on to WPBM. It would look something like:

|peer-review={{#switch:{{lc:{{{peer-review|¬}}}}}||¬|no=|yes}}

|title={{#switch:{{lc:{{{peer-review|¬}}}}}||¬|no|yes=|#default={{{peer-review|}}}}}

Do you understand what those lines are doing? Happy‑melon 14:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:VG. That's interesting. I didn't think of doing something like that. It should work. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea behind the yesno mask, but think we could do this more efficiently by placing the code on, e.g. Template:WPBannerMeta/note, rather than calling it 21 times on Template:WPBannerMeta when a lot of these parameters may not even be used. I've read WP:PERF but I still think we should strive for efficiency ;) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

But it would also have to be done for taskforces, which would be both in /taskforce for the notice itself, and also in /core for the nested links, plus a load of times in /core itself for the small options, etc. And then there would be issues over whether you'd be double-normalising it from hooks, which would be unnecessary inefficiency. Keeping all the normalising functions together in WPBM main is certainly the clearest and least likely to result in parameters being missed, and the performance load is pretty small (smaller than the class mask, even without the #ifexist: statement). Happy‑melon 20:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, you've convinced me! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Image list

{{Project Derbyshire}} used to list images that were missing. Doesnt do it antomre. The parameter was photo with choices na yes and no Victuallers (talk) 10:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It expects values of "yes", "na" and "needs". This was, however, the behavior before conversion to WPBM, so nothing has changed in that area. Happy‑melon 11:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Generic self-documentation

I have added to the documentation a "Generic self-documentation" section, that documents a minor problem and its solution. Regards, — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 03:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I thought putting a pre inside a noinclude would mess things up. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I was worried about that too, since the preview showed me those two extraneous "noinclude" displayed inside the Pre frame on the template's page itself, but I checked after the update by purging the banner then one page of Redirect-Class, Disambig-Class, and Project-Class, and everything was still working fine (text and categorization-wise). The extraneous "noinclude" that can be seen inside the Pre frame seem to be a minor Mediawiki bug when rendering the template page itself: I think the noinclude sections should have their noinclude tags stripped from the page's code before further parsing and rendering is done. I guess the developers didn't imagine we'd use a Pre tag under such circumstances. (I'm not sure if it's worth reporting to Bugzilla.) — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 17:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

"This article is within the scope..."

Resolved

– PEBKAC.

I see code in Template:WPBannerMeta/core that suggests that the banners that use WPBM should be able to tell what kind of talk pages they are attached to, and change this wording accordingly, but I don't see this happening. E.g., at WT:CUE, it still says "article". — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

That's because {{WikiProject Cue sports}} sets the |MAIN_TEXT= parameter to it's own value rather than using the WPBannerMeta one and it was just set to a fixed value. I've now changed the code in the WikiProject Cue sports from "article" to "{{#if:{{SUBJECTSPACE}}|page|article}}".

Another option could be to not set MAIN_TEXT at all and just use the following instead

|MAIN_ARTICLE = [[Pocket billiards|pool]], [[carom billiards]] and other [[cue sport]]s

-- WOSlinker (talk) 06:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, duh. Thanks. I put that one together so long ago I forget that the |MAIN_TEXT= option even existed! — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Broken?

Has someone broke the template? Meta banners are displaying uncollapsed and without the show/hide tab, and are affecting other talk page templates with collapsible sections. Problem seems to go away if I remove meta banners from a page and preview. PC78 (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Usual question: what browser? Does it have an at-all-useful error console, if so, what is it saying? Clearly there's a javascript error somewhere, but what and why I'm not sure. Happy‑melon 21:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

IE7, and no. PC78 (talk) 21:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

That latter is certainly true! I can get as far as the cryptic "line 78: Expected identifier", but no further. However, line 78 of Common.js is an IE-specific bugfix, which could be the issue. I don't think it's been changed recently though... Happy‑melon 21:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Custom class query

If a project wanted to use a new assessment class in their banner, how would they define the new class? Previously it would just be a case of creating a new {{Foo-Class}} template, but presumably it's not that simple now the meta uses {{Class}}. Let's say for arguments sake that I wanted my project to rate articles as SubStub-Class; would it be necessary to a) request an edit to {{Class}} in order to fix the capitalisation and not display the text as Substub, and b) request an edit to {{Classcol}} to define a colour for the new class? PC78 (talk) 10:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

That would seem about right to me. Plus {{classicon}} if you wanted to define an icon for the new class. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)And an edit to {{classicon}} if you wanted an icon for it, yes. I don't think the slight extra hurdle is a particularly bad thing, it might stop the re-proliferation of classes like all those templates you cleaned out the other day... Happy‑melon 10:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me that we are putting class parameters through a mask twice, once on Template:WPBannerMeta/class and again on Template:Class. Don't know if we make this more efficient or not. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I've taken the case-normalisation rules out of {{class}}, your example twigged me to the fact that they're completely unnecessary: everything is already normalised in /class. So it would only be to {{classcol}} and {{classicon}} if you were that way inclined. Happy‑melon 10:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Lol, seems we're thinking along exactly the same lines. Happy‑melon 11:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

:) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed change of colour for Portal-Class

Discussion here. Not a meta-based issue per se, but it may be of interest to you guys. Regards. PC78 (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Problem with {{yesno}}

The notes do not now accept triggers other than "yes", "y", and "1". This is a problem in the case that other values are required. For example Template:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology is not working because the portal parameters are supposed to accept a date. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I've set the yesno templates on the main banner to return "yes" on a nonempty, but unrecognised, parameter, like this. This would also fix the issue WPVG comments on above. Need to do the same thing for the hooks. Happy‑melon 18:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:WPBannerMeta/bchecklist

I'll not make a proper edit request because I know you guys are generally on the ball, but this subtemplate might as well be using {{classcol}} for the checklist background. PC78 (talk) 22:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. Hope you're not planning to change this colour as well ;) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 05:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hot pink, anyone? PC78 (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Light pink is closer to the colour of vomit… Physchim62 (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Vomit-Class articles? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Safari borken-ness, redux

Can someone with Safari or one of the other browsers that reported severe nastiness with the WPBM display inside banner shells, say if my attempt to fix in the sandbox has been successful? Take a look at the WikiProjectBannerShell in Template:WPBannerMeta/testcases and say what you see? Happy‑melon 14:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be working. [3] -- WOSlinker (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yay! Happy‑melon 18:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I've implemented the new code. Let's hope it works! Happy‑melon 19:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Module talk:WikiProject banner/Archive 4